# Talk:Tet Offensive

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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

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)

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, 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)

"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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

The description that "Viet Cong suffer catastrophic losses and much of their Southern infrastructure destroyed" should be removed and references to this fact as well. The Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force, but suffered some losses. The narrative that they were destroyed is a narrative pushed by revisionist historians that push a particular point of view that the war was won or close to being won. I am requesting that this line be removed. 
Please see this article from historian Erik Villard. 
https://www.historynet.com/villard-tet/
I am also requesting that the following be added below. 
"That year-end 1968 total included 138,000 combat soldiers—86,000 from North Vietnam (up from 68,000 before Tet) and 52,000 Southern-born Viet Cong fighters (up from 47,000). Viet Cong guerrilla strength stood at 78,000 (up from 71,000), although Viet Cong administrative strength declined slightly from 37,00 to 35,000.
In the years from 1968 to 1975, communist units in the South relied more and more on the insertion of North Vietnamese Army troops to replace their losses, but the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force through the end of the war." 
Summerhall fire (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I would also add this description to the aftermath section, it seems to lack good representative discussion of its impacts on the Viet Cong/NLF/COSVN generally. Summerhall fire (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Firstly the VC were always part of the PAVN, so the distinction is somewhat flawed. The local force VC was largely destroyed in 1968, then their infrastructure was decimated by the Phoenix Program. While never fully eradicated, they were a much diminished force in the war, which was increasingly a PAVN-ARVN war. So there is no need to change the existing language. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Ed Moise author of an excellent book: The myths of Tet would like to comment? Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about my book, Mztourist, but I think you are spreading the definition of PAVN too broadly.  Even in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam since the war, the PAVN has been the core but not the whole of the armed forces.  Source: Tu dien bach khoa quan su Viet nam (Military Encyclopedia of Vietnam), rev. ed., published by the PAVN in 2004, pp. 630, 835.  Before 1975, with a guerrilla war going on, non-PAVN forces would have made up a larger proportion of overall armed forces.

In Dinh Tuong province not far southwest of Saigon, I have no idea whether the VC 261st Battalion was considered part of the PAVN, I think the VC 514th Battalion probably was not considered part of the PAVN, and I am sure a bunch of guerrillas not organized into battalions were not considered part of the PAVN.  It definitely would not have been true to say that in Dinh Tuong the Viet Cong, as a whole, were part of the PAVN.

COSVN controlled some PAVN units, but it was not itself part of the PAVN. It was a Communist Party organization, not a PAVN organization.

You write “The myth that the VC were a southern insurgency somehow independent from the North was completely exposed, they are just a branch of the PAVN.”  I would say the VC were neither independent from the North nor just a branch of the PAVN.

I am writing here about how the Communists defined the PAVN.  I may do a separate post about how US intelligence defined the PAVN. Ed Moise (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
My apologies to Mztourist.  I had a good source for a limited definition of the PAVN in recent years, and I wrote that the proportion of armed forces that were non-PAVN "would have" been even higher during the war.  It turns out what I thought "would have" been true was not actually true.  There is at least one very reliable source, Merle Pribbenow's translation Victory in Vietnam, page 68, indicating that the PAVN during the war was defined much more broadly than I had thought.
So the only things in my post that were correct were that the PAVN in recent years has not included all the armed forces, and that COSVN was not part of the PAVN. Ed Moise (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for your comments but I beg to differ, the Communist Party of Vietnam controlled COSVN, the VC and PAVN, everything else is just wartime propaganda to create the pretense that the VC was a Southern nationalist movement, rather than the reality that they were entirely controlled by the CPV. Merle Pribbenow's translation of the official history of the PAVN states on page 68 that "The Liberation Army of South Vietnam [Viet Cong] is a part of the People's Army of Vietnam" Mztourist (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the Communist Party controlled COSVN, but that did not make COSVN part of the PAVN.  Pham Hung's status as head of COSVN was a lot like the status of Robert McNamara, or Clark Clifford, as US Secretary of Defense.  A civilian in a civilian job that gave him authority over senior military officers. With the difference that McNamara had at least had a military background as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Air Corps, while Pham Hung had never actually served as a military officer, and had only briefly--a long time before he became head of COSVN--been a spokesman for PAVN in dealings with foreigners.Ed Moise (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Ed COSVN was first led by MG Nguyễn Văn Linh and then General Nguyễn Chí Thanh, it reported to the PAVN General Staff, however you want to parse it, it was part of the PAVN and they acknowledge that themselves. Mztourist (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
COSVN was first led by Le Duan.
Where have they acknowledged that it was part of PAVN? Ed Moise (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Why do you call him MG Nguyen Van Linh?  I am not aware that he ever held any rank in the PAVN.  The entry for him in the PAVN's military encyclopedia, Tu dien bach khoa quan su Viet nam, rev. ed. (Hanoi: Quan doi nhan dan, 2004), p. 731, has a pretty detailed list of the positions he held over the course of his career.  I see nothing about service in the PAVN.  This is an official PAVN reference work; it tends to notice service in the PAVN. Ed Moise (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think COSVN reported to the PAVN General Staff?  I think it reported to the Politburo and Le Duan. Ed Moise (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The Vietnamese name of COSVN was Trung uong cuc Mien nam.  Trung uong was the Central Committee of the Lao Dong Party.  Trung uong cuc Mien nam was the southern branch of the Lao Dong Party Central Committee.  The Communists believed far too much in the supremacy of the Party over the military ever to have let any part of the Lao Dong Party Central Committee to be subordinated to the PAVN. Ed Moise (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I understood that was Nguyen Van Linh's rank, maybe I'm wrong. You haven't disputed that Thanh was a PAVN general, nor that the PAVN say that the VC was part of it. Also of course COSVN only controlled operations in III and IV Corps, other "fronts" controlled I and II Corps, do you say those were a separate chain of command from the PAVN? Mztourist (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
This first, second, and fourth heads of COSVN were civilians (Le Duan, Nguyen Van Linh, and Pham Hung). Pham Hung seems the most relevant for this page of Wikipedia, since he was head of COSVN at the time of the Tet Offensive.
Nguyen Chi Thanh was both a member of the Politburo and a PAVN General. I think his being a member of the Politburo was crucial to his appointment to a position that was fundamentally political, not a PAVN job.
Your last question looks strange to me because the answer seems so obvious.  If COSVN controlled III and IV Corps (approximately), and there was no similar organization for I and II Corps, how could there not be separate chains of command for the fronts in I and II Corps?  And in the absence of a non-PAVN organization like COSVN, how could those separate chains of command be any other than PAVN? Ed Moise (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Ed, as I'm sure you know, Hoàng Văn Thái was a PAVN general, commander of the PLAF and deputy secretary of COSVN. Trần Văn Trà was a PAVN general and later commander of the B2 Front. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Those statements are true, but I don't see how they have anything to do with the question.
If COSVN had been part of PAVN, every single head of COSVN would have been a PAVN officer.  Four out of four.  Even if you had been right about Nguyen Van Linh being a PAVN officer, that would have made two out of four, and for only two out of four to have been PAVN officers would have been strong evidence that COSVN could not be a part of PAVN.  Try to imagine someone who was not an Army officer being made commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.
Why are you so eager to believe that COSVN was part of PAVN?  Are you under the impression that if it were not, this would somehow have implied that the southern insurgency was not controlled by Hanoi? Ed Moise (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Ed Moise The article and this editor implies that the Viet Cong were destroyed following the Tet Offensive. Is this conclusion incorrect?  Summerhall fire (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
If you mean Erik Villard's article, it did not imply that.  In fact it said the Viet Cong had more personnel at the end of 1968 than they had had before Tet.
Actually the Viet Cong were weakened by the Tet Offensive more than Villard's figures show.  I don't have time to go look again at the actual MACV estimates, but I think I remember them pretty clearly.  What Villard did was compare an estimate in December 1967, when MACV analysts were under strong command pressure to issue low estimates of enemy strength, with an estimate in December 1968 when there was less command pressure and the estimates could be more accurate.
Viet Cong strength was lower in December 1968 than in December 1967.  But not enough lower to make it true, or even close to true, to say that the Viet Cong had been destroyed. Ed Moise (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
The article by Erik Villard states there was still the majority of their civilian infrastructure in place, and a sizeable portion of their armed forces. This is far from the outcome stating much of their infrastructure was lost/destroyed.
Not denying that the war became increasingly conventional, but if the protracted model of warfare ended in 1968, then the post-1968 COIN strategies would have no reason to be implemented.
I am familiar with Ed Moises' name, but haven't read his books. Would welcome his input.  Summerhall fire (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The VC wasn't the same organisation post-1968 because so many of the local force of southerners had been killed and so were replaced by PAVN who didn't have the same local knowledge and affiliations. The myth that the VC were a southern insurgency somehow independent from the North was completely exposed, they are just a branch of the PAVN. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I am well aware of all of these points and never stated they were a seperate organization. I am again contending that the insurgency method of warfare did not end in 1968, and organizational strength did not either. The Viet Cong were still existing as a branch of the PAVN after 1968. The majority of its organization according to the Erik Villars article, seems to still be in place.The Phoenix Program did not even end until 1972, and it's HQs in Cambodia were also still in place until the Cambodian invasion.
Again refer back to the edit I suggested, revise or weaken the language in the outcomes/results section.  Summerhall fire (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I never claimed the insurgency or counterinsurgency ended after 1968, but it was diminished. There was no separate VC HQ in Cambodia, COSVN was the PAVN command. I don't think one historian's view overrides every other source, particularly when largely based on MACV estimates which were always the subject of debate: Viet Cong order of battle controversy. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Mztourist Can we mark this request as answered? It seems to me that this is something requiring consensus, that can thus not be simply done through an edit request. (Which should not discourage more experienced/specialised editors like yourself from continuing this conversation to come to a consensus or to try editing the article) Slomo666 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes agreed. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a consensus is happening, there was no comment and just a back and forth with another editor.
I posted this topic several days ago but no response happened until I put in the edit request. Summerhall fire (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
If you are failing to get consensus, then this cannot be an edit request. I'm sorry if I'm sounding strict, but the existence of this back-and-forth demonstrates a lack of consensus, meaning your request is not uncontroversial. Sadly, this is something that can happen.  Note that you did not use a regular edit request template, so I hope peope will just continue this thread so that a consensus could be formed. Otherwise you or someone else could start a new topic.  Slomo666 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC) Edited 10:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
We can create consensus here. My original point was that the Result and Outcomes section in the infobox is misleading, based on the data provided by a historian linked above. Namely that the Viet Cong/insurgency ended after the Tet Offensive. ￼
This is a very political edit, since it's part of a narrative that media/etc. lost the war, when mainstream historians do not agree to this view.  Summerhall fire (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I recently changed the Outcomes Section from the "Viet Cong suffered catastrophic losses... etc." 
To "Viet Cong suffered significant losses... etc" 
A user reverted the change below. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1312724376
A user had reverted the change, but did not attempt to reconcile the different positions in the last thread. The previous outcome description had no clear evidence or references, and clear contradictions since neither the Viet Cong nor its method of insurgency was destroyed by the Tet Offensive as these results implied. This is inserting a POV perspective which contradicts historical records. 
Reference for the basis for these changes is found below:
"At the end of 1967, approximately 225,000 Viet Cong and PAVN forces were in the south. Despite casualties taken, Viet Cong and PAVN forces numbered 251,000 by the end of 1968. The Tet Offensive had little impact on troop numbers, and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war." 

Summerhall fire (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You raised this issue above, I disagreed, so there is no consensus for the changes that you made, so you have gone and started an edit war.  As I said above, those numbers are MACV's figures, which were always disputed. Villard seems to take a very simplistic mathematical approach to reach a highly debatable conclusion. If you want to add a sufficiently nuanced quote: According to Erik Villard "... then fine but you don't get to change the outcome, which is addressed in the Aftermath section based on one historian's opinion. Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
see the changes I made. It did not edit anything controversial, neither was it a controversial edit within the framework of the discussion.
You should go ahead and justify your reasoning, instead of disputing an actual historian's perspectives. There is no sources to support the idea that Tet Offensive ended the insurgency or anything of that nature, nor does it support the idea that the war was lost due to media and narrative, as many others improperly state it does.
I would rather invite a third party to mediate this as you originally suggested.  Summerhall fire (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
It is one historian's view, that's all. You can follow all the necessary procedures to elevate this dispute, but you don't change the page unless and until there is a new consensus on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like the editor who reversed your edit to present the quotes and sources that, in their view contradict, your reliably sourced edit. It's not good practice to simply reject a reliably sourced edit with "I don't think one historian's view overrides every other source". At the moment, only one side of the discussion has given evidence.
Secondly, I had a flick through Dr. Erik Villard's book (a higher quality source) and he gives the following: The enemy prepared accordingly. Whether victory was ultimately achieved on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, Le Duan was acutely aware that military strength was the key to success. Consequently, he spent the year feverishly replacing his losses. Thanks to infiltration from the North, enemy troop strength in South Vietnam actually grew despite the enormous casualties, from 228,000 personnel in December 1967 to around 240,000 troops in September 1968.
FropFrop (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
User:FropFrop the discussion is over whether or not the "Viet Cong suffer catastrophic losses and much of their Southern infrastructure destroyed". The quote you give from Villard's book and the original quote both aggregate VC and PAVN numbers and so do not address VC strength individually, nor the effect on the VC infrastructure. So the quotes from one historian (Villard), do not actually support the argument being made. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
You've already stated the Viet Cong were just a branch of the PAVN, you can't go back and pretend they are now distinct. Nonetheless the conclusion that the Viet Cong "infrastructure" being wiped out during the Tet Offensive is clearly called into doubt.
But going back to the original argument, the hard claim you are making that the VC infrastructure or insurgency ended after Tet isn't even sourced or backed by anything. The argument you are now making is about the validity of one source vs. an unsourced presumption that the Viet Cong suffered catastrophic losses, simply because you believe they did.
If you cannot approach this subject without bias, might as well just agree to the very mild revisions I made instead of gatekeeping this edit.  Summerhall fire (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Summerhall fire you have been on WP since 12 September and made a total of 25 edits (17 on the main Tet Offensive page or this Talk); given your argumentative approach I assume that you are a banned user returning under a new identity. The quote that you have provided doesn't support the change to the outcome that you wish to make. Despite your repeated assertions, I have never claimed that the VC insurgency ended after Tet. Mztourist (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Not sure where you are going with this argument, but there are now two users who generally agree to the edit I made that you reversed.
Don't know why you are so invested in this issue, it's such a minor thing. If you want to suggest a consensus edit go ahead, but the current status quo description is not supportable given all evidence to the contrary.  Summerhall fire (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Assume good faith
If you are genuinely concerned, you ought to follow the established procedure. Your assumption makes me further doubt that you are making a genuine effort to resolve this dispute.
FropFrop (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
User:FropFrop I have never seen you edit on Vietnam War pages, whereas I have for most of the 15+ years I've been on WP. If you had, you would know that these pages are regularly the subject of contentious edits by pro-Communist Vietnamese accounts or by anti-American users who adopt a similar approach. This page was socked as recently as 17 September by User:Pioraptor a sock of User:Sotavino Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I have never seen you edit on Vietnam War pages Indeed, I received a RFC from a bot.
if you had, you would know that these pages are regularly the subject of contentious edits by pro-Communist Vietnamese accounts or by anti-American users who adopt a similar approach. A similar approach as making a well sourced edit? It is best not to bring in previous bad experiences when an editor is doing everything right. Again, if you genuinely believe that there are grounds for the concern of a banned editor making edits, then follow established procedure, rather than deflecting and not engaging in progressing the discussion.
FropFrop (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Not deflecting, just pointing out the most probable scenario here which I have experienced before, a sock makes controversial edits, then a well-meaning User like you with no knowledge of the subject matter gets drawn into the debate. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
the discussion is over whether or not the "Viet Cong suffer catastrophic losses and much of their Southern infrastructure destroyed". Forgive me but is the proposed edit in question not: At the end of 1967, approximately 225,000 Viet Cong and PAVN forces were in the south. Despite casualties taken, Viet Cong and PAVN forces numbered 251,000 by the end of 1968. The Tet Offensive had little impact on troop numbers, and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war.
If so, the quote from Dr. Erik Villard's book seems relevant. The Viet Cong and PAVN are being treated as separate organisations.
The quote you give from Villard's book and the original quote both aggregate VC and PAVN numbers and so do not address VC strength individually, nor the effect on the VC infrastructure The proposed edit reflects this.
So the quotes from one historian (Villard), do not actually support the argument being made. I disagree, to me it supports the proposed edit.
Could you please provide your sources and quotes that contradict Dr. Erik Villard? It's the only way of making progress that avoids following a more formal and dragged out dispute resolution procedure. It's bad practice to not provide your sources and it is making me doubt that your objection is being made on supported grounds.
FropFrop (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
User:FropFrop the Villard quote is being used to oppose the outcome of whether or not the "Viet Cong suffer catastrophic losses and much of their Southern infrastructure destroyed". Villard's quote is internally inconsistent as the first sentence does not support the assertion that "the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war". As I have already said above, PAVN/VC numbers were always a matter of debate, read: Viet Cong order of battle controversy. After the failure of Tet, the May Offensive (mini-Tet) and the Phase III offensive the North infiltrated more PAVN to restore its forces, but they were PAVN soldiers recruited in the North, not VC (i.e. native local guerilla forces). Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
the Villard quote is being used to oppose the outcome of whether or not the "Viet Cong suffer catastrophic losses and much of their Southern infrastructure destroyed". The opening to this thread says I recently changed the Outcomes Section from the "Viet Cong suffered catastrophic losses... etc." To "Viet Cong suffered significant losses... etc" A user reverted the change below., "Viet Cong suffered significant losses... etc" is a fair summary of the reliably sourced edit that you undid here [9]. So it would be accurate to say that you are objecting to a proposed edit.
Villard's quote is internally inconsistent as the first sentence does not support the assertion that "the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war". Can you explain in more clear terms how it is internally inconsistent? I'm not following. Claiming that a historian who specialises in this topic is internally consistent is quite a tall claim.
Because saying that "the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war" is not supported by saying that overall troop strength (PAVN+VC) increased over the course of 1968. Read the Aftermath North Vietnam section which provides multiple sources that contradict Villard. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
"the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war" is not supported by saying that overall troop strength (PAVN+VC) increased over the course of 1968. That claim is directly given by the original source by Dr. Erik Villard. You've also not explained how it is internally inconsistent, that requires a contradiction.
Dr. Erik Villard, in the book, says:
The Communists began pulling back their conventional forces, avoiding costly offensives to return to a more guerrilla-centric strategy of small-scale operations, sapper attacks, and long-range bombardments. Such an approach would keep the pressure on the allies while buying time for the North to rebuild...The enemy had emerged from Tet weaker logistically, too. Not only had the offensives drawn mightily on Communist resources, but allied operations had disrupted many enemy logistical stores...These substantial accomplishments were tempered by the fact that forty-one of the enemy’s fifty base areas in South Vietnam still remained active, as did his sanctuaries in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, but clearly it would take much time and effort for the enemy to recover.
He's presenting a nuanced description of the state of their operations, I don't understand the source of your concern.
Read the Aftermath North Vietnam section which provides multiple sources that contradict Villard. I'm already volunteering my time to try and help progress the discussion, if you could please assist by providing your reliable sources, that would be much appreciated.
FropFrop (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
As I have already said above, PAVN/VC numbers were always a matter of debate, It's not up to us to have the debate but to follow the reliable sources. At the moment, I am aware of two sources, one being of high quality and both support the proposed edit.
read: Viet Cong order of battle controversy. After the failure of Tet, the May Offensive (mini-Tet) and the Phase III offensive Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and I'd rather not invest more time wading through sources. I'm already volunteering my time to try and help progress the discussion, if you could please assist by providing your reliable sources, that would be much appreciated.
the North infiltrated more PAVN to restore its forces, but they were PAVN soldiers recruited in the North, not VC (i.e. native local guerilla forces). How does that contradict: At the end of 1967, approximately 225,000 Viet Cong and PAVN forces were in the south. Despite casualties taken, Viet Cong and PAVN forces numbered 251,000 by the end of 1968. The Tet Offensive had little impact on troop numbers, and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war.
Could you please provide your sources and quotes that contradict Dr. Erik Villard?
FropFrop (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Read the entire Aftermath North Vietnam section on the page and you will find multiple sources stating the devastating impact of Tet on the VC and so contradicting Villard's assertion that the "Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war". Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You are not even trying to reach consensus, you are just trying to litigate this issue pointlessly, and making non-sequitor rebuttals to try and gatekeep this page. The fact that you spent over 15 years editing Wikipedia doesn't give you the right to deny edits, instead of trying to reach consensus.
Are you simply just denying the validity of Erik Villard's text?  Summerhall fire (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@Mztourist
Please see this post with respect to this edit. There is consensus Villard was credible as a source.
Look, I'll assume this was good faith, but you don't need to turn this to a petty vendetta. We all agreed this edit was credible, you have no right to keep edit warring
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1314600152 Summerhall fire (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the consensus below which is only for the change in the Infobox to significant. There is not consensus for inclusion of the Villard quote. As noted below I have presented 5 RS that contradict the Villard quote. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
okay. I'll preface it by adding "according to historian Erik Villard". This format should work.  Summerhall fire (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
If you do that I will add all the contradicting quotes. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Look you are taking things way too personally, I really do not care what you add. I think it's healthier if we both step away from this article for a few days.  Summerhall fire (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
What is your basis for removing the content? It uses a reliable source. You ought to explain your reasoning, not just remove it.
@Summerhall fire It may be best to start a second RFC on adding the paragraph back in, in its original wording.
FropFrop (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Support "significant". "Catastrophic" is fairly emotive / dramatic language that would require a strong degree of unanimity among the sources to support, which doesn't seem to be present. Honestly there's similar problems further down the body (eg. dismal failure isn't great in the article voice, either.) And honestly that aside, the argument that the "aftermath" section supports a summary of catastrophic doesn't seem...  true?  It begins by clearly stating that the casualty figures are disputed. Some things further down are really weirdly-worded, too, in ways that make it clear that there's disputes and oddities in the way we weigh things - for instance, we devote an entire paragraph to From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill nearly 70% of the VC's ranks with PAVN regulars as if it was a major, dramatic impact, only to conclude with However, this change had little effect on the overall result of the war, since in contrast to the VC, the PAVN had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive. That doesn't paraphrase as "catastrophic" to me. But either way, catastrophic is such strong language that I feel we'd absolutely need for the vast majority of sources to either use that exact word or wording that unambiguously has the same meaning, with basically no reputable sources indicating any dissent at all. That simply doesn't seem to be the case. In the article voice, and especially in templates where we have no room for context, that sort of strident language has to be used with extreme caution. If people think "significant" isn't strong enough, find another word; but "catastrophic" really isn't the sort of wording we can introduce ourselves as a summary, even if it accurately summarized the section (and I don't think it does!) --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
'Support "significant"' as well. I've been researching the Vietnam War for decades, and the vast majority of RS don't use the word 'catastrophic' when discussing VC losses during Tet. PAVN had already been replacing VC losses with personnel from the North, and this simply accelerated the process. One source (doctor/PhD or not) doesn't indicate consensus, and the emotive nature of catastrophic is also concerning to me unless it's supported by a number of RS. That isn't the case here. Intothatdarkness 15:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Support "significant" and the re-inclusion of the removed paragraph - A high quality source has been provided that supports the changes. Additionally, 'catastrophic' is a rather strong word that ought to be used only if done so by a majority of the reliable sources.FropFrop (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment: opinions differ and the Villard quote is not authoritative, e.g.: Max Boot said "The Viet Cong were virtually wiped out as an effective fighting force." The Savage Wars of Peace 2002 p308; James Willbanks "most authorities agree that the Viet Cong suffered greatly during the Tet fighting and ceased to be a significant military threat for the remainder of the war" Abandoning Vietnam 2004 p5; Victor Davis Hanson "only ended up in a bloodbath, destroying the Vietcong infrastructure in the South for at least 2 years" Carnage and Culture p404; Don Oberdorfer "it is clear that the attack forces and particularly the indigenous Viet Cong, who did most of the fighting and dying, suffered a grievous military setback... The Viet Cong lost the best of a generation of resistance fighters and after Tet increasing numbers of North Vietnamese had to be sent south to fill the ranks. The war became increasingly a conventional battle and less an insurgency." Tet! 1971 p.329; Keith Nolan "The Tet offensive was nothing less than a shattering military disaster for Hanoi." "Tet was the beginning of the end for the Viet Cong. Decimated during Tet, the guerilla army was further wrecked during a second wave of virtually suicidal attacks launched on Saigon in May and June. By 1969, the VC had been almost entirely replaced on the battlefield by the regulars of the North Vietnamese Army" The Battle for Saigon Tet 1968 1996 pages 256 and 258. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Could you provide the Max Boot quote in its larger context? For example, the period of time that he is talking about.
The James Willbanks quote is less vague but does it contradict Villard? Villard doesn't seem to disagree that they weren't a threat: "The enemy had emerged from Tet weaker logistically, too. Not only had the offensives drawn mightily on Communist resources, but allied operations had disrupted many enemy logistical stores... Indeed, apart from the U.S. political scene, the enemy’s efforts in 1968 had surprisingly little impact on the allied conduct of the war, at least so far...Johnson administration’s policy had always been to use military force to convince the enemy that “he can’t win,” thereby forcing him to accept a negotiated settlement acceptable to the allies"
The Victor Davis Hanson quote is presumably about the period after the Tet offensive? If so, Villard doesn't seem to disagree. [list of allied disruptions to enemy's infrastructure] These substantial accomplishments were tempered by the fact that forty-one of the enemy’s fifty base areas in South Vietnam still remained active, as did his sanctuaries in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, but clearly it would take much time and effort for the enemy to recover.
Villard also doesn't seem to contradict the Don Oberdorfer quote (it's also from 1971 and there has been a lot of scholarship since then).
The Keith Nolan quote doesn't contradict Villard either... Statistics indicated the magnitude of the North’s failure. From October 1967 through September 1968, the U.S. military reported that the allies had killed 175,000 Communist soldiers. About 154,000 of these had died during the first nine months of 1968... Thanks to infiltration from the North, enemy troop strength in South Vietnam actually grew despite the enormous casualties, from 228,000 personnel in December 1967 to around 240,000 troops in September 1968.
In my opinion, it seems that you're judging Villard's assessment of the war very differently to how he describes it. FropFrop (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
FropFrop I have given multiple quotes from respected historians that clearly contradict Villard's quote and you can also read Ed Moise's comments above. I do not have the time or inclination to debate every aspect of each of them with you. If you insist on including Villard's quote then I will insist on including all these other contradictory quotes. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, where's the contradiction? Villard doesn't seem to be disagreeing to any great degree with the quotes that you provided. Villard isn't saying that the Viet Cong were at the same strength as they were at the beginning of the war (or whatever else you think that he says).
If you insist on including Villard's quote then I will insist on including all these other contradictory quotes. No one is asking to insert a quote by Villard...
FropFrop (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Summerhall fire is proposing exactly that. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
At the end of 1967, approximately 225,000 Viet Cong and PAVN forces were in the south. Despite casualties taken, Viet Cong and PAVN forces numbered 251,000 by the end of 1968. The Tet Offensive had little impact on troop numbers, and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war. That's not a quote.
Using Villard as a source ≠ quoting Villard.
FropFrop (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure you know what I meant and as I have said before the "and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war" is not supported by the preceding details of troop numbers and directly contradicted by multiple other RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
is not supported by the preceding details of troop numbers Apologies, I'm not sure if I'm following again. Do you mean that Villard is arguing that the Viet Cong were a viable fighting force because their troop numbers increased? Or are you referencing some other "preceding details" by some other author? If the former, an expert opinion is expert opinion, even if the troop numbers were the sole evidence that Villard used (which it isn't; he discusses things in greater detail than that) and even if the evidence (in your opinion) weakly supports his conclusion.
and directly contradicted by multiple other RS I'm going to break down the quotes you provided because either you've not provided the quotes in their proper context or you're reading them as saying more than they say:
Max Boot is (assuming that he's talking about the Tet Offensive here) plainly contradicting Villard. However, Boot is not a Vietnam war specialist (publishing books on a variety of topics does not make you a specialist on one particular subject), so Villard ought to be used over Boot here.
James Willbanks said: "most authorities agree that the Viet Cong suffered greatly during the Tet fighting and ceased to be a significant military threat for the remainder of the war". "Suffered greatly" does not contradict Villard, nor does the Viet Cong no longer being a threat contradict Villard. My reasoning:
Threat ≠ viable fighting force; one can be a fighting force without being a threat. I suspect that this point is where the disagreement stems from.
Villard said: "The enemy had emerged from Tet weaker logistically, too. Not only had the offensives drawn mightily on Communist resources, but allied operations had disrupted many enemy logistical stores... Indeed, apart from the U.S. political scene, the enemy’s efforts in 1968 had surprisingly little impact on the allied conduct of the war" So, Villard agrees with Willbanks that the Viet Cong suffered greatly.
Villard said: "the U.S. military reported that the allies had killed 175,000 Communist soldiers. About 154,000 of these had died during the first nine months of 1968... South Vietnam actually grew despite the enormous casualties". So, Villard agrees with Willbanks that the Viet Cong suffered greatly and he makes the case that they remained a fighting force.
Victor Davis Hanson said: "...only ended up in a bloodbath, destroying the Vietcong infrastructure in the South for at least 2 years" Villard agrees, he lists the massive loss in infrastructure that the Viet Cong were inflicted (see the quote's citation that I gave previously). However, that does not mean that the Viet Cong were not a "viable fighting force".
Don Oberdorfer said:
"it is clear that the attack forces and particularly the indigenous Viet Cong, who did most of the fighting and dying, suffered a grievous military setback... The Viet Cong lost the best of a generation of resistance fighters and after Tet increasing numbers of North Vietnamese had to be sent south to fill the ranks. Villard agrees: "the U.S. military reported that the allies had killed 175,000 Communist soldiers. About 154,000 of these had died during the first nine months of 1968... South Vietnam actually grew despite the enormous casualties"
The war became increasingly a conventional battle and less an insurgency." Villard may disagree with this: The Communists began pulling back their conventional forces, avoiding costly offensives to return to a more guerrilla-centric strategy of small-scale operations, sapper attacks, and long-range bombardments. However, this point isn't relevant to the dispute (whether or not the fight became more of a guerilla or conventional war, that doesn't isn't relevant in regards to the verifiability of "the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war.")
Don Oberdorfer also wrote this in 1971, so Villard, being more recent scholarship, ought to be used over it. Exceptions are made of course, but that argument would need to be made.
Keith Nolan said:
"The Tet offensive was nothing less than a shattering military disaster for Hanoi." I haven't checked to see if Villard agrees or disagrees. However, this doesn't seem to be relevant. Having a shattering military disaster doesn't mean that you cannot be a viable fighting force.
"Tet was the beginning of the end for the Viet Cong. Decimated during Tet, the guerilla army was further wrecked during a second wave of virtually suicidal attacks launched on Saigon in May and June. By 1969, the VC had been almost entirely replaced on the battlefield by the regulars of the North Vietnamese Army" Villard doesn't diagrees: Thanks to infiltration from the North, enemy troop strength in South Vietnam actually grew despite the enormous casualties, from 228,000 personnel in December 1967 to around 240,000 troops in September 1968.
Could you please, as plainly as possible, breakdown where the contradiction between Villard and the other scholars can be found? Please give direct reference and comparison of quotes, with your reasoning made explicit. By my reading, Villard is in large agreement with the majority (and all specialists).
FropFrop (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
just an FYI I would not regard Max Boot as a good historian on this subject, himself alongside a spate of other revisionist authors, had a very clear preconceived goal in mind to their works. He is a clear political commentator using history as a tool to justify other political positions he holds, not a historian trying to take a balanced position on the matter.  Summerhall fire (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Take it to RSN. Mztourist (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Surely not? Max Booth is not a Vietnam War specialist...
This is getting petty.
FropFrop (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
FropFrop, its not up to you to decide who is and is not a "Vietnam War specialist", that is for RSN to decide. Boot has so far written 1 book on Vietnam, Villard has so far written 2 books on Vietnam (his slim The 1968 Tet Offensive Battles of Quang Tri City and Hue is essentially covered by his later, larger Combat Operations Staying the Course). Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
its not up to you to decide who is and is not a "Vietnam War specialist", that is for RSN to decide. Sure, that's how a dispute can ultimately be resolved. However, I'd have expected that on this point, that that wouldn't be necessary, but oh well.
Boot has so far written 1 book on Vietnam, Villard has so far written 2 books on Vietnam + numerous peer reviewed journal articles on the subject... He's a Vietnam war specialist. Boot on the other hand is not a specialist and seems to be more of a popular-historian. If you genuinely disagree then fair enough, I guess it can be escalated, seems rather silly but oh well.
FropFrop (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Boot has written numerous articles on a range of topics (in addition to his other books), so we don't agree. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I wish people would stop using the figure 225,000 for combined VC and PAVN strength in South Vietnam at the end of 1967.  That was indeed what MACV officers estimated at the end of 1967.  See the summary table in the second frame of the PDF at [14] But this was a very inaccurate estimate; the officers who compiled it were under heavy command pressure to make their estimates low.  
In 1972, the same office that issued the 225,000 figure admitted, oops, that actual VC and PAVN combined strength at the end of 1967 had been 262,274.  Combined Intelligence Center Vietnam, Order of Battle Summary, July 1972, Volume II, page I-37.  I happen to suspect that 262,000 was still an underestimate, but it was at least a lot closer to the truth than 225,000. Ed Moise (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Tran Van Tra, Tet, in Jayne S. Warner and Luu Doan Huynh, eds., The Vietnam War: Vietnamese and American Perspectives. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1993, pgs. 40, 49 & 50, is cited in three places in this page as the source for various statements that are not actually on pgs. 40, 49 and 50 of Tra.  
In the cases of note 57, most of the material in the paragraph is needed, though it needs some correction, and a valid source citation.
In the cases of notes 14 and 115, Tra is cited as a source for numbers that seem to me absurdly low, so my inclination is to use the lack of a valid source as an excuse to delete the numbers from the main text.  
I thought before I started deleting statements, I should give people an opportunity to correct the source citations. Ed Moise (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like no one will take the opportunity you offered. I guess there will be other opportunities after  incorrect statements deleted. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is nothing I would call a reliable source for levels of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese strength in South Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.  But the closest thing to a reliable source that I have seen or heard of is a set of estimates done by military intelligence officers at MACV in 1972.  They had more information than had been available in 1968 and 1969 (there were a lot of VC and NVA documents that had been written in 1968 and 1969, but were not captured until later), and they were not under political pressure because nobody was paying much attention to their work.  Graphs they drew showing personnel in regular combat units (not guerrillas) show:
In January 1968, on the eve of about Tet, about 102,000 in NVA units, 10,000 to 12,000 northerners in VC units, 43,000 to 45,000 southerners in VC units.
At the end of 1968, about 86,000 in NVA units, 13,000 to 16,000 northerners in VC units, 35,000 to 38,000 southerners in VC units.
In July 1969, about 92,000 in NVA units, 17,000 to 19,000 northerners in VC units, 25,000 to 27,000 southerners in VC units.
These figures are for regular combat units only, not guerrillas.  The proportion of southerners among the guerrillas would have been much higher. 
Combined Intelligence Center Vietnam, Order of Battle Summary, July 1972, Volume II, pages I-43, I-44. Ed Moise (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

On August 30, I added a comma. I recently notice that this edit got reverted. Here is the link to the edit itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1308538363
The sentence is currently written as follows, "During the second half of 1967 the administration had become alarmed by criticism, both inside and outside the government, and by reports of declining public support for its Vietnam policies". It is very clear to me that "During the second half of 1967" is a dependent clause, and for that reason, it is necessary for there to be a comma afterwards. For that reason, I will be adding the comma back.
I do not know who reverted it, and I cannot find that edit either. If someone (including the person who originally made the revert) wants to remove it again, that is fine, as long as they also post in the talk page about it. It can be as a reply to this topic (which should ping me automatically), or it can be made as a new topic as long as you ping my username so that I get notified. And then we can solve the conflict through discussion, as per Wikipedia rules.  Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I was able to search through the editing history and find that edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1309527241 Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Since I have reversed a change made by an editor, I will give notice to that editor: @Sir Sputnik Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Anonymous Libertarian: Thanks for the heads up, and sorry about the revert. This was a mistake on my part. The next two edits after yours were block evasion. I inadvertently reverted one edit further back than I had intended. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)