Talk:Tet Offensive

NLF

What does the "NLF" acronym stand for? Not explained in article, nor here. Does it represent a French-language term?
--Atikokan (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One author wrote the following: 1959 . . . was the year that Ho Chi Minh declared person's War to unite all of Vietnam, which led to the formation of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF), of which the Viet Cong constituted its (guerilla) army. Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 20.99.147.149.27 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@99.147.149.27 The term "Viet Cong" was actually a slur invented by Diem. Its use in the text represents a bias, even if inadvertently. The NLF never used the term to describe either its regular forces or its guerrillas. Couldn't the author(s) simply refer to "NLF guerrillas"? 2800:98:1117:19B7:F56D:DD41:887:BF63 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I don't there is any question that "Vietcong" is the WP:COMMONNAME, fans of "NLF" remain determined and persistent. Kauffner (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011

• As the author of the vast majority of this article I find it very interesting that the intro now fails to even mention the organization which carried out most of the offensive and suffered the majority of the casualties on the communist side. PAVN was not the parent body of the NLF's armed forces (both were subservient to the Party's Military Committee). Oh well, typical of Wiki, where historical accuracy is denuded in the name of the lowest common denominator.74.177.109.240 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

`

• • Nonetheless, according to the Vietnamese official history of their armed forces, the NLF was a part of the PAVN, and both, of course, were under the command of the Vietnamese executive, as in any country of the world. I believe some credit have to be given to that point of view (Military History Institute of Vietnam, Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975, translated by Merle L. Pribbenow. University Press of Kansas, 2002. p. 68. ISBN 0-7006-1175-4). The refusal to acknowledge the "insurgents" in South Vietnam as part of a regular army, which would concede that the NLF had local support is, to my unprofessional point of view, one of the many instances of a one sided view in the article, which is natural to some degree in the English Wikipedia, dominated by English native speakers. For example, the PAVN is repeatedly (to the point of being irritating) called communist forces while the US army is never referred as capitalist forces. Given the implications of the word "communist" in the English speaking world, is hard to fathom the intentions of the writer (if the writer even realize what he's doing). There are few efforts to name the PAVN units that fought the battle, they are merely referred by estimates of their numbers, as appeared in the US military press releases of the epoch. There are few opinions about the thoughts of the Vietnamese commanders, and some are qualified with pejorative adjectives, while the article abounds in thoughts of US commanders taken from what appears to be US press articles, dutifully echoed by US historians. There are what seems to be excuses given for the most blatant war crimes. Thus, the NLF tagging as extraneous to the PANV is just the tip of an iceberg that points to a few weaknesses in an article that apparently lacks enough input from the Vietnamese or Chinese version of the events. Moreover, the article references heavily only one book, as noted in the tags at the header of this discussion page. I first tried to give here the reasons I have to be suspicious of many articles where US forces are involved, where is hard to distinguish the US official narrative from the Wikipedia version, but in the end I erased my rant and added the Globalize tag, in hopes of new input. In spite of this opinion, I'm deeply thankful for the general quality of the article, which I've read many times (with deep joy) as it has grown over time, specially because of, what seems to me, the pivotal role in Southern Asia history (and perhaps World history of colonization) played by this battle. It marked, perhaps, the high tide of Western intervention in Asia, but this analysis does not belong here (or does it?). So, many thanks, sincerely and from the bottom of my heart, to Mr. 74.177.109.240, in hopes that his Vietnamese and Chinese colleagues join him in his marvelous and appreciated effort. I'm not sarcastic here, merely pointing that each one of us has a culture at the root of our opinions and that in history it takes many generations to reach a perspective. I just hope that the facts are not lost for future historians, for them to be able to develop it in a proper way. --Ciroa (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be FNL - which comes from French. Something like "Front Nationale du Liberation" I think, someone has made the abbreviation in English instead (National Liberation Front, I suppose). "FNL" was the commonly used name for Viet Cong in most European countries (most West European countries, actually). As I grew up that red-blue flag with a yellow star was waved by some people, and "FNL" was indeed very associated with that flag. This comment may seem like taking a side, but I was far too young and have not really had any thoughts on this war. Memories however, and they are affected by the strong left winds of that time. My memories, not my perspective. Guess it was a sad matter to all involved. Boeing720 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Correction, FNL is still French , correct full name was "Front national de libération du Sud-Viêt Nam" . Boeing720 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

your reference to the the "irritating" term communist forces as opposed to capitalist forces is interesting, if misplaced. The term is a descriptive, not a disparaging, one. Communist forces are organized and trained in a political methodology, not just military one. This make them unique. The The organization into three-man cells, self-criticism, and the overwatch of political officers at all levels, etc., gives them a totally different cast than any other military organization. I also agree that the NLF should be attributed as such. Viet Cong was a derogatory term drummed up by the Diem regime in order to discredit the NLF.- R.M. Gillespie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.96.249 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

read WP:COMMONNAME. I always replace communist with VC or PAVN whenever I see it used. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Tet Offensive – First three paragraphs of the Introduction require corrections

The introduction states, in part, as follows: “The operations are referred to as the Tet Offensive because they began during the early morning hours of 31 January 1968, Tết Nguyên Đán, the first day of the year on a traditional lunar calendar and the most important Vietnamese holiday. Both North and South Vietnam announced on national radio broadcasts that there would be a two-day cease-fire during the holiday. In Vietnamese, the offensive is called Cuộc Tổng tiến công và nổi dậy ("General Offensive and Uprising"), or Tết Mậu Thân (Tet, year of the monkey).” This is not correct. The first day of the Vietnamese New Year in 1968 was the 30th of January and not the 31st. Consequently, wherever you write 31 January in the Introduction, you should replace it with 30 January. If you look down the article at the first two paragraphs under the section titled, Offensive, you can see that portion was handled correctly. Additionally the 3rd paragraph of the introduction reads, in part, “five of the six autonomous cities, . . , and the southern capital.” This is not correct. Saigon, Dalat, Hué, Da Nang, Cam Ranh, and Vung Tau were the six autonomous cities, so you should more correctly say, “five of the six autonomous cities (including the southern capital).” All of these Introduction issues were discussed extensively in Archive 3 along with verifiable sources.72.197.86.130 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath -- United States – 2nd paragraph requires correction

The 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence reads as follows: “As a result of the heavy fighting, 1968 went on to become the deadliest year of the war for the US forces with 16,592 soldiers killed. This is not correct. There were a total of 16,899 American deaths (hostile and non-hostile) in Vietnam during 1968. Hostile deaths included 13,005 killed in action, 1,630 died of wounds, 272 missing in action/declared dead, and 23 captured/declared dead. An additional 1,969 Americans suffered non-hostile deaths, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. This issue was discussed extensively in Archive 3 along with verifiable sources.72.197.86.130 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tet Offensive

This article should be reviewed by Wikipedia's military history team for internal inconsistencies and biases, for incomplete discussion of subject matter, repetitiveness, and for possible biases in source matter that are not adequately noted or discussed in the article. It also appears to lack footnotes references for some crucial and possibly questionable statements.

Some specific problems as examples:

The section "Order of Battle and Communist Capabilities" includes neither a presentation of the order of battle for Communist forces or for allied forces. Rather it is largely a discussion of internal debate among U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials and within the Johnson Administration. "Order of Battle" means something specific, and this section is not one.

The section which follows, "Success of the Offensive", is entirely a discussion of U.S. domestic and political issues related to the war during 1967 and previously. It does not cover any aspect of the Offensive in 1968.

Next comes "Northern decisions", sub text "Party politics" which contains such statements as "Planning in Hanoi for a winter-spring offensive during 1968 had begun in early 1967 and continued until early the following year" which cannot possibly be true since the Offensive itself began in "early 1968", and the detailed planning and training for the offensive, including infiltration of additional troops from the North, such as staging of the assault forces, and stockpiling of supplies, had to be completed in late 1967 - a decision to move forward with this extensive effort can only have been made many months beforehand. This, in fact, is hinted at in the following section, only one of many contradictions in the article. The section entitled "General Offensive and Uprising" then makes the claim that the decisions were not finalized until October and December, 1967, which would have been too late for the North Vietnamese to position troops and supplies to carry out the offensive.

The section entitled "Saigon" begins with the internally contradictory statement: "Although Saigon was the focal point of the offensive, the communists did not seek a total takeover of the city" - when it is generally accepted that 1) the aim was to occupy and hold all of the cities and towns which were attacked, not parts of cities (which would have been extremely difficult), nor merely one or another of them; 2) the NVA made a particularly concerted effort to capture the two northernmost provinces of the Republic of Vietnam and to set up revolutionary governments there, and that was clearly a primary North Vietnamese goal, as it was again in the Easter Offensive in 1972; and 3) the most concerted effort and the one that came closest to success was at Hue, not Saigon.

There are many other problems with the article, including a disorganized approach and sloppiness in presentation. My guess is that this is more a result of too many editors with too many different view points, some of them political in nature, but whatever the reason, the result is a confusing article that may contain errors or unsupported opinion or ideological viewpoint. I don't have the time or background to deal with any of this easily, but there are many solid professional and amateur historians who edit Wikipedia articles, and perhaps a careful reviews by a small group could come up with an approach to edit the article into something more scholarly.Sciacchitano (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sciacchitano, I renamed the section to more accurately represent the discussion. It may be reverted, however. I think you correct, though. This article needs a lot of work. --Korentop (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Term: communist

Someone already mentioned it. What is it with the constant use of the terms "communist(s)" or "communist forces" for North Vietnamese troops and the Viet Cong? In my opinion it is not well chosen in this topic, because it is generalizing and also inculdes a subtile message/opinion. The exaggerated use, if not the mere use of this term at all sounds absolutely stupid and non-scientific. One could think that the "communists" of communists from all over the world. If I would use this term in this way in a scientific essay, it would be marked as non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.216.187 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of this term is that is that it avoids the suggestion that northern and southern communists were separate militarily. I think it is clear from the memoirs of Tran Van Tra and others that this was not in fact the case. In Vietnamese historical literature, they don't make this distinction. The communist soldiers are all designated PAVN, regardless of whether they were northerners or southerners. If there is some military operation during which northerners did one thing, while southerners did something else, then a distinction is relevant. But just to replace "communist" with "PAVN/NLF" or something similar creates the misleading idea of two forces that have been combined. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone

I see a lot of colloquialisms and other kinds of unencyclopedic language in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

bias

as Noam Chomsky said, Tet offensive is considered a highly biased term as many would see it as a 'Tet rebellion', after all it was their own country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.224.215 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I, and many others, see Chomsky as as biased, very partisan and controversial historical and political commentator. Actually, the Tet Offensive was initiated by North Vietnamese communist troops and Southern VC insurgents, not a popular uprising by normal civilians, so it's not a rebellion. As well, the offensive was partly if not mostly initiated, conducted and lead by Hanoi, and one must recognize the North and South were politically separate nations and independent entities, despite both calling themselves the sole legit VN and both wanting unification. Someone like Chomsky who denied the Hue Massacre ever happened and calling it a myth, earns the same doubts to their credibility and trustworthiness as a neo-Nazi denying the Holocaust... Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

GAR status

Okay a few big tags at the top of this one. The globalize tag[1] was added with [this explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATet_Offensive&diff=441761048&oldid=435155304] and has been there since July 2011. The tone one is more recent[2] and has also been brought up at the talk page.[3]. Now I can't speak much to the globalize viewpoint, but I can see the point behind the tone one. The first sentence starts off "During the fall of 1967, the question of whether the U.S. strategy of attrition was working in South Vietnam weighed heavily on the minds of the American public and the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson." The whole article is nicely written, but appears a bit more essayish than what I am used to seeing in a Good encyclopaedic article. Can someone familiar with the topic address these issues? AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay it has been a month and there are no responses here or as far as I can tell changes addressing the issues at the article. The next step is to start a GAR to try and fix the issues or delist the article. Will probably do so in the next few days unless I get a response here. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are certainly a lot of problems with flabby writing and inconsistent nomenclature. The material on communist thinking is both speculative and outdated. Ang Cheng Guan had access to the communist archive and would be the authority on many of these issues. But he is cited on only two minor points. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article and can't see any obvious problems. However, you guys are welcome to start a GAR if you want. Also, if there's no worldview problem, I suggest removing the globalize tags.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I can not speak to the globalise tag as I do not know enough about the topic, it could be relavent and considering it has sat on the article for 1.5 years it probably is not completely misplaced. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

History.net

History.net, Gareth Porter and Marilyn Young are the reliable sources. Don't remove it, @Quoc VietMiG29VN (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The main reason the inclusion of the Hue Massacre "Dispute/Denial" section in the Tet Offensive article is unacceptable, is because the Tet Offensive article provides an over-arching summary of all military operations and events that occurred around and during Tet 1968, including a short summary of the Hue Massacre, but, the denial of the Massacre's existence is only held by a very small minority of historians - the overwhelming majority accepts that the Hue Massacre was committed by the Viet Cong - even captured Viet Cong documents record precisely how many people they killed and they've admitted to perpetrating it! By MiGVN inserting that large Massacre denial paragraph, which only few, fringe, partisan historians/political analysts hold like Young and Porter, it is completely disproportionate to the rest of the Hue Massacre section in the article, since the massacre paragraph is already short (~several lines), and therefore, a minor subtopic such as Massacre denial, in particular a fringe subtopic, should be even shorter (1 - 2 lines maximum ), or absent altogether, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight (see 1st paragraph and Jimbo Wale's 3 points). Also, apparently MiG29VN considers using captured Viet Cong records of the number of people they killed as "POV", and using Douglas Pike's Hue Massacre report to a US Government hearing as "POV". Even user Eyesnore responded that my edits were constructive and achieving NPOV, after MiG29VN falsely and deliberately claimed I was a vandal, in attempt to mislead Eyesnore in removing my edits and MiGVN evading any accusations of edit warring and blocks. MiGVN claimed i was removing his Gareth Porter/Marilyn Young section, even though it is clearly still there. Following MiG29VN's logic, academic who rely on secondary information sources - second-hand info, such as Porter and Young, which deny any wrongdoing from the Communists in all or part, are "reliable", "valid", "neutral" sources, while first-hand data from the Viet Cong's very own documents, Douglas Pike's report to Washington, and investigative data from South Vietnam which prove the Massacre's existence, as "invalid" and "biased".Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Time's RV

"However, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, citing a French priest she spoke to in Huế, claimed at least 200 people, and perhaps as many as 1,100, who were killed following the "liberation" of Huế by the US and ARVN.[130][131] Stanley Karnow wrote that the bodies of those executed by South Vietnamese teams were thrown into common graves.[130] Some reports exposed that South Vietnamese "revenge squads" had also been at work in the aftermath of the battle, searching out and executing citizens that had supported the communist occupation.[132][133]

Historian David Hunt posited that Douglas Pike's study for the U.S Mission was, "by any definition, a work of propaganda". In 1988 Pike said that he had earlier been engaged in a conscious "effort to discredit the Vietcong".[134]"

These are main article's blocks. All of them are valid, but you removed them without a reason. That's totally biased113.190.46.134 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

One must be critical and skeptical of what this MIG29VC says and does - serious integrity issues can be witnessed eg from his fabricated references, false claims of "vandalism", deviously removing cites to remove content altogether etc. This guy tried to falsely, deceptively frame opposing editors (myself and Andreas Philopater) as "vandals", in order to get unsuspecting, unaware users to delete content that I and Andreas have contributed that MiG dislikes. MiG wants other users to delete content for him, so that way he's not on the hook for edit-warring. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=608220007&oldid=608203909 Quocviet removed the reliable source without a reason. His revert edit is vandalism, isn't that? If that is vandalism, please ask him to stop this42.113.89.101 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• ACTIVE MIG29VN SOCKPUPPETRY INVESTIGATION ROUND 3
• Archives of 2 recent, previous sockpuppetry investigations of MIG29VN

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tet Offensive. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708215934/http://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/TET to http://www.history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/TET

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) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Results of the Tet Offensive

In light of the book Hanoi's War For Peace, found here [[4]] which combs through North Vietnamese government archives, the Tet Offensive should be looked at in a different light. The strategic goals was to spur a general uprising as well as to cause defection among ARVN units, neither of which was met during the offensive. At the same time it laid bare the public fact that the US was not winning the war in light of private proclamations by US leaders that they were losing, and cemented to the American public that US ground forces cannot win the war. I think editing the results section might be a bit better to reflect this. Perhaps rather than stating outright "victory", or"tactical and strategic". There was no real intention to hold ground given that there was something under 85k troops against nearly 1 million, which is not a realistic tactical assessment. 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)User talk:a_bicyclette

I'd suggest something along the lines of Strategic Failure: Uprising and Defection and something along the lines of political or whatever victory as it currently is. A bicyclette (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)User talk:a_bicyclette

• Oppose any change to the Infobox and Aftermath which already accurately summarise the entire outcome. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, after editing the body. This is the definition of a HQRS: scholarly history, scholarly press, raving reviews. (Univ of North Carolina Press; http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA419268803&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=1044016X&p=AONE&sw=w ; https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-368957607/hanoi-s-war-an-international-history-of-the-war-for ; https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/100/1/278/747815 ). The support is conditional, because you don't start with the infoboxes, you start with the body of the article and summarise upwards. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 3The-Duong-2---dai-tuong-Nguyen-Chi-Thanh.jpg
• T4 Vietcong Tet Offensive.jpg
• Tet Offensive Preparation.jpg
• Viet Cong Sworn In.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Outcomes Section Edit

As modern scholarship does not point to this being a classical invasion, in the sense of holding territories in a conventional war. The proper outcome should be regarded as "Territory recaptured" and "Failure to create uprisings/defections" as the objective of the tet offensive was this. This distinction is key, given that the 1972 Offensive was a clear example of a repulsed invasion, with markedly different objectives.

Unreffed description of "depletion of Viet Cong leading to substitution by North Vietnamese forces" was one long term outcome among many. Not really relevant regardless, since they continued to exist and were historically a branch of the NVA. Substituted with See Aftermath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deogyusan (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Infobox result has been stable until you made your recent changes. I am agreeable to changing "North Vietnamese invasion repulsed" to "Failure to provoke a general uprising". It is commonly known that the VC suffered horrendous losses and that from then on the PAVN took over most of the fighting with the VC playing only a supporting role and so "depletion of Viet Cong leading to substitution by North Vietnamese forces" is entirely accurate. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several outcomes but it isn't relevant to list all of them, as the Viet Cong remained a presence that actively conscripted areas they held after the Tet Offensive and remained an existing military force, albeit with 70% of their forces being from the DRV instead of 30-40%, as per the article'd aftermath section. We need not list e.g. "Vietnamization" as an outcome, just as we need not list this one as they are not direct, immediate outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deogyusan (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Distinction Between VC/NVA Not Useful

The Viet Cong isn't a seperate organization from the NVA, its directly politically and militarily controlled by the PAVN, existing as a non-uniformed wing entirely under the NVA's military control. There's a popular myth that they ceased to exist after the Tet Offensive when it was a reflection of changing military doctrines/changing presence post-Tet Offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the VC was part of the PAVN, but it had a separate organizational structure and operated differently, so perfectly appropriate to address them separately as is done across WP. Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is quite literally an opinion. Its leadership were entirely PAVN leaders and it operated as an unconventional branch of the main group. Its conscript base were interchangable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? We have numerous pages on WP about the VC and references to them, are you saying they should all just be changed to PAVN? Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting that the VC somehow disappeared is absurd, they continued to exist throughout the war as the PAVN still made use of non-uniformed fighters. To suggest they simply disappeared is absurd. I don't care for whatever biases you hold, but your inability to understand different perspectives shouldn't reflect this. Anyways my issue is also with an editor who cited a dictionary to discuss a clear casualty discusion in the Results section. clearly it doesn't belong.216.209.50.103 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Going to sign-off. You are making the quality of these pages actively worse, I know this is all you do in your time is to edit wikipedia, but suggesting deleting countless articles and blocking any edits isn't productive.216.209.50.103 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. Leave. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonder what makes you so spiteful? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative enterprise?216.209.50.103 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonder why you keep coming back to try to push your POV, particularly after saying you're done.Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about your opinion.216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And I don't care about yours A Bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Justifying Yet Another Edit

Results section should not discuss casualties. in ref to this change [5].

moving it to casualties is appropriate, since these were unilateral edits by another user that wasn't discussed. going to suggest other users moderate this. whether results section should discuss casualties or whether my suggestion that it belongs in another section stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The extent of VC losses and their effect on the composition of southern forces post-Tet is an important outcome of the offensive that belongs in Results, not Casualties section of Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

you fail to see the bigger picture of why discussing political effects is much more relevant. especially since it isn't even a 'strategic' victory in any sense. casualties were largely irrelevant to the PAVN, their leadership didn't care about taking too many. i am amazed you are taking an incredibly layman view that every battle is about who kills more rather than being about broader political and military objectives. I am not going to argue with you anymore however, but I have never come across someone who is so emotionally invested into something so trivial and pointless. its almost comical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying you're not going to argue anymore and then you come back and edit war again, you are a boring joke. Mztourist (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a person spends their entire day getting into edit wars I find quite funny. you are currently obsessed with Vietnam War related topics which I find also quite amusing because you block every single edit anyone makes if you dislike it. I made constructive edits, which in your mind is somehow pushing POV. Do what you like, clearly you are more emotionally invested.216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you keep coming back despite saying you're leaving is beyond boring. If you make constructive neutral edits I can accept those, but as always A bicyclette, you want your POV in every page you touch. Its rich you talk about me being obsessed with Vietnam war related topics because those are the ones you always want to change. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vo Nguyen Giap

By this edit: [6] User:George Cao Van Long replaced Lê Duẩn with Võ Nguyên Giáp without explanation. I reverted the change saying "Giap wasn't involved as he didn't want any part of it, it was Le Duan's plan". George Cao Van Long added back Giap with no explanation. I reverted this change saying "stop edit-warring this, follow WP:BRD and take it to Talk Page". George Cao Van Long reverted me again without explanation. I posted an edit-warring warning on his Talk page and opened this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, Tet was Lê Duẩn's plan, Giáp didn't support it and went off to for medical treatment in Hungary to avoid responsibility for it and all the planning was left to Văn Tiến Dũng. This is all covered on the Võ Nguyên Giáp page and on the article page which states "Contrary to Western belief, General Giáp did not plan or command the offensive himself." and so is beyond argument.User:George Cao Van Long needs to explain why he keeps adding Giáp in the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

29 January 1968

You can check the book History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Joint Chiefs of Staff and The War in Vietnam 1960–1968, part 3[7]. In p.145, it says: "The Administration promptly accepted General Westmoreland’s recommendations, with the stipulation that bombing in North Vietnam would be restricted to the region south of Vinh. President Thieu also gave his concurrence. On 26 January, the Joint Chiefs of Staff notified CINCPAC and CINCSAC of these exceptions to the 36-hour truce, which would begin at 1800H on 29 January in II, III, and IV Corps. The ceasefire began on schedule, but was short-lived. Soon after midnight on the 29th, enemy forces in southern I Corps and parts of II Corps, evidently acting prematurely due to a mix-up in orders, attacked key towns and installations. This action resolved the allies’ questions about the timing of the general offensive. At 10.00 hours on the 30th, Saigon time, President Thieu formally cancelled the truce throughout South Vietnam, and both the US and ARVN commands placed all their forces on full alert. The alert came too late, however, to recall thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers who had gone on leave for the holiday. Outside of I Corps, where the absentee rate was around 20 percent, most ARVN units were at about half strength when the truce was cancelled. Allied forces thus were partially off balance when the Communists began their nationwide attacks in the early hours of 31 January." Lienanhhippo (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Lienanhhippo I know full well what the truce arrangements were. But your poorly written additions do not belong on this page. The details of the truces are not important enough to go in the lede and are already covered in the Before the offensive​ section. Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I will rewrite itLienanhhippo (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have already said, this information does not belong in the lede and is already covered in the Before the offensive​ section. English clearly isn't your native language, and your additions are very poorly written - WP:CIR. You are expected to follow WP:BRD and discuss disputed changes here on the Talk page not just keep reinserting them, that is edit-warring and it will lead to you being blocked.Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have moved those information to the Before the offensive​ section.Lienanhhippo (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

American and South Vietnamese casualties

There's an obvious contradiction between casualties in the infobox and in Aftermath. The Infobox says there were around 10,000 killed/missing in Phase one alone, which is referenced to an ARVN source from 1969. On the other hand, the aftermath says "The South Vietnamese suffered 2,788 killed, 8,299 wounded, and 587 missing in action. U.S. and other allied forces suffered 1,536 killed, 7,764 wounded, and 11 missing." This is sourced to the Department of Defense. What is the correct figure? Maybe the larger one does actually include phase 2 and 3. Encyclopedia Britannica for example, says "U.S. and South Vietnamese casualties numbered 12,727, including more than 2,600 fatalities.". I can't access the references used and therefore can't verify and correct these inconsistencies. Karsdorp85 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is worse than you may realize. Different authors use wildly different definitions of when the Tet Offensive, or just Phase One of the Tet Offensive, began and ended. Sometimes the same author will use two different definitions within the same paragraph.

The Infobox says Phase One began on January 20 and ended on March 20. I don't think I have ever seen anything other than this Wikipedia page that suggested Phase One began and ended on those dates. So no figures have ever been published for casualties between those dates.

Looking at the figures for casualties "In Phase One" lower down in the Infobox, starting from the top, I see:

On the left side, the figure of 4,954 South Vietnamese personnel killed is a figure for deaths in the months of February and March (but it is not a figure I trust; I think the actual losses were considerably worse).

On the right side, the American claim of 45,000 enemy personnel killed was a figure for the period January 31 to February 29.

You mention figures from the Aftermath section of the article stating that the South Vietnamese suffered 2,788 killed while US and other allied forces suffered 1,536 killed. Those figures must refer to some even shorter period, not even the whole month of February. Ed Moise (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Nixon derailed negotiations in 1968

The article states that "the Johnson Administration sought negotiations to end the war, which were derailed in a secret agreement between then-former Vice President Richard Nixon...and South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu." This wording may be too suggestive of the failure of the negotiations being due solely to Nixon. While there is little doubt that Nixon was acting in an irresponsible and self-interested way that potentially jeopardized the lives of American military personnel in Vietnam, his effect on the outcome of the negotiations may actually have been negligible. See https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/09/dont_blame_nixon_for_scuttled_peace_overture_127667.html and the last sentence of https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/ . Gdw1948 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Nixon's actions did not alter the outcome of the negotiations. There would have been no chance Johnson would achieve peace, even without Nixon's sabotage. I have made an appropriate revision.

The interesting question is whether Nixon understood that. He definitely thought negotiating peace would be a lot easier than it turned out to be. He may have thought it would be easy enough that there would have been a chance of accomplishing it before the end of Johnson's presidency, and that he was sabotaging a real chance for peace. Ed Moise (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

... in relation to Israel

Could mention be made within the article of The Tet Offensive in relation to the latest events in the Middle-East? For are there not some similarities between the shock offensive in the Far-East and the latest conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.234 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources make more than a passing reference, with an explanation of why it's related, perhaps. (Hohum ^@) 20:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, a comparison to the Tet Offensive could be made on the Hamas attack page, if as User:Hohum notes there are RS. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this. The similarities are so slight that I do not think the comparison is particularly useful. The Tet Offensive was a much more ambitious operation by a much more powerful force. Hamas in its recent offensive was not even attempting to seize control of any important Israeli city. Ed Moise (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Date inconsistency

There is a Template:Use mdy dates hatnote designating the dates on this article should follow MDY format, and the infobox and one sentence in the lead do. The rest of the article is in DMY. One system needs to be chosen and the other dates changed to that format. Posting here to establish consensus on which should be used. – TCMemoire 16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to DMY as easiest fix. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mztourist: I agree, not only is this easiest, but following the convention of the target country as well as Vietnam War itself seem most appropriate. Thanks for fixing it. – TCMemoire 08:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)