Talk:Tet Offensive

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• The article, at over 13,000 words, is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that information be spun out or summarised more effectively.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It was a complex and much debated offensive. I don't see much that can be spun off, other than reducing the Phase II and Phase III to perhaps just a paragraph as they already have their own detailed pages. If there are uncited statements tag them. No objection to a GAR. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I did a quick skim and only saw two or three paragraphs that lacked citations entirely. The organization is a bit off, and I agree with @Mztourist that Phase II and Phase III could be reduced. Also, it might be possible to shorten both the sections on Hue and Khe Sanh as very detailed articles already exist for both. On the whole, though, it's a decent article considering the scale and complexity of the event it's discussing. It could go to GAR, I suppose, though there are other candidates from this period out there. Intothatdarkness 13:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: If there are other GAs that should go to GAR, I suggest that you open the reviews. As for this article, are you or Mztourist interested in resolving the concerns, or perhaps one of you could send this to GAR? I post a lot of articles there and editors appreciate seeing a variety of nominators there. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

One of them was an article you'd expressed length concerns about before. The discussion there seems to have died. I could undertake some trimming here in the identified areas (Hue, KLhe Sanh, and the Phases), but it won't be right away. Intothatdarkness 17:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been working through this and am at the Saigon section. I'm very tempted to go through and reduce any parts with a separate article (the Embassy attack being one example) to perhaps a line with a link to the other article. The same goes for later sections Like Khe Sanh. Thoughts?Intothatdarkness 13:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Intothatdarkness: Sorry that I did not respond to this earlier. I would support your suggestion on reducing the article prose this way. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Campaign box Issue - Results Section

The campaign box conclusion is not properly adhering to the standards set out here - Template:Infobox military conflict. The parameters result section should state See Aftermath section instead of making conclusions about strategic and tactical victories, etc.

Notes from templatebox -

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Summerhall fire (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Listing Provinces Among the Places Attacked

When we are listing the places that were attacked in the Tet Offensive, it makes no sense to include the names of provinces on the list.

The Communists already had forces in every single province. What typically happened in the Tet Offensive was that Communist forces that had been in a province for a long time, controlling parts of that province, attacked places in the province that were under government control. It is those places we should list.

For example, the Communist forces in Quang Tin province attacked Tam Ky and Chu Lai. It would be reasonable to say they attacked Tam Ky and Chu Lai. It would be reasonable to say they attacked several places in Quang Tin. It would not be reasonable to say they attacked Quang Tin.

If a province and its capital had the same name, I might not object to our just listing that name, and leaving readers to figure out that we mean the town not the province. For example, I might not object to saying they attacked Quảng Trị. But I do object to "Quảng Trị (again)," since that refers back to an earlier reference that was to Quảng Trị province not Quảng Trị city, so I think that would mislead readers.

I will make a couple of corrections now, and let others wait until I have seen whether there are objections here. Ed Moise (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Intelligence Estimates for Which Date?

The last paragraph in "General offensive and uprising" gave what it said were South Vietnamese and US intelligence estimates of enemy strength in January 1968. They were actually South Vietnamese (not US) figures for December 1967. I have made those corrections. I think I should also put US estimates into this paragraph.

But should I use US estimates from December 1967, to make them more comparable with the South Vietnamese estimates? Or US estimates from January 1968, which are a bit more relevant to the Tet Offensive? Or both? There is not much difference. Ed Moise (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)