2741:
includes the redundant "over two months"; the linked urban fighting is trivial and incorrect as the US Army fought in the countryside west of the city; "the heavy losses negatively affected
American public perception of the war." is not supported in the body of the page, "heavy losses" is wrong, losses weren't heavy given the combat environment and length of the battle, if this is an attempt to link to the Cronkite report, that report was a commentary on the entire Tet Offensive, not just the fighting at Hue and this is already addressed in the final sentence of the lede, though it should read "battle" rather than "losses".
479:
458:
2720:
Options 2 and 3 is redundant filler wording, whereas the second sentence of Option 1 is far more succinct. Fourthly in Option 4 it doesn't make sense to identify the attackers in the first sentence when all the belligerents are identified in the second sentence also North
Vietnam was a country when what is being referred to are North Vietnamese military forces. Fifthly in Option 4 the words "totaling 18 battalions" is somewhat redundant and breaks the narrative. My vote was originally for Option 1 but I also suggested a revised version which has been added as Option 5 above.
673:
652:
293:
2715:." I don't see any "confusing mess" Option 1 has 9 links in the second sentence as does Option 4. Options 2 and 3 spread 12 links over 2 sentences. So I don't see Options 2, 3 or 4 having any advantage in readability. I have some specific critiques of Options 2, 3 and 4. Firstly, both Options 2 and 3 refer to "North Vietnam's Tết Offensive" which is arguable, although the effectively North controlled the southern insurgency calling the offensive North Vietnam's is highly debatable and indeed even the
277:
309:
746:
582:
561:
325:
21:
107:
2758:- a wider summary of the importance of the battle - seems there's a guideline about that, which we should be following. Numbers of battalions aren't needed in the very first paragraph. Possibly minor amendments need to be made incorporating Mztourist's comments immediately above. I'd be interested to hear exactly where he would draw the line on heavy versus light casualties and what standard he is working to.
148:
489:
374:
353:
384:
215:
179:
3062:
my comments again. In the few RFCs I've been involved in I've never seen changes made like this once voting has commenced, but its met with "the RFC hadn't even been open for an hour" and then "This is all in the early stage of the RfC, and I won't really be adding more like this" as excusing the malformed RFC.
3061:
When you closed the ANI earlier today you said "User:MarkH21 is understandably frustrated" well I hope you understand that I am frustrated that I commented on the 3 Options, then another Option was added and so I changed my comments and then another Option was added, which means that I need to revise
1185:
Re the GAN process. NOTUSA is not one of the five MoS guidelines included in GA criterion 1b, so so far as passing GAN is concerned whether or not the article met NOTUSA is moot. "US" or "U.S." should, indeed, be standardised. I commented in the GANR "Either U.S. or US is fine, but could you only use
2770:
US losses at Hue were 216 killed in about 4 weeks of fighting, so that's about 54 per week. Total US deaths in 1968 were 16,592, doing a straight division that's about 319 per week. But
February was a very heavy month for US casualties with approximately 1,900 killed or about 475 per week. So 216 of
1971:
correct. It seems most commentators are not addressing the actual argument above and are instead looking at this thread at surface value thinking this was about whether we should apply "MOS:NOTUSA" at all or not, which this isn't about. I know I almost made the same mistake and was about to say yes.
1385:
It seems pertinent to mention the Tết
Offensive in the first paragraph and the countries involved before listing the military branches involved and number of battalions. The dates & location were also cluttering the list sentence, and could easily be moved to another part of the first paragraph.
3209:
What exactly is the problem with adding more options to an RfC at such an early stage if people feel a need for one? I agree there shouldn't normally be a need for it as all options have normally been mentioned at the talk page before, but well, as I said, your stonewalling is responsible for that.
2740:
Option 6 is the worst of all as it isn't a direct replacement for the first paragraph and would require changes to be made to other paragraphs of the lede. Specific problems are: it fails to identify the combatants (ARVN, US Army and US Marines) leaving those to be defined elsewhere in the lede; it
2149:
US/U.S. is used as an adjective all the time. Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether
American or US is used in the particular instance, I have no preference. It's not wrong, it's entirely correct. A listing of countries is a different case. There's no common abbreviation for "South Vietnamese" or
2710:
major military engagement of the Tet
Offensive. It was certainly "one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War." I don't see that any of the alternative versions "define much about the battle or give much context." in contrast to Option 1. In relation to the comment that "the second
3194:
I am discussing what MarkH21 has done here (i.e. within this
Request for comment) constantly reframing this RFC. Rather than continuing to berate me about what I should or shouldn't have done before, please address the issue at hand and advise if MarkH21 reframing the RFC is acceptable behaviour.
3179:
If you had offered alternatives during the talk page discussion MarkH21 had initiated prior to the filing of this RfC - instead of stonewalling the discussion - reframing the RfC wouldn't have been necessary. No reason to be frustrated about such a thing; compromise is part of dispute resolution.
1591:.The noticeboard post was also a general question, not a request to resolve the issue in the preceding section here. Editors disagree on what improvements can be made, and disagreements are resolved by dispute resolution. Disagreements are not resolved by a priority claim by one of the editors. —
2719:
page refer to it as being "by North
Vietnam and the Viet Cong." Secondly, both Options 2 and 3 say "Over the course of two months" which is redundant as the exact dates are given, while Option 4 states "After two months of fighting in" which is similarly redundant. Thirdly "Taking place" used in
3333:
Read the page, 3 US Marine battalions and 11 ARVN/Marine battalions fought in the city, 4 US Army battalions fought in the countryside. Your Option 6 refers only to urban fighting which is only part of the battle. The US Marines battle was urban and so that's what they wrote about and developed
1970:
It seems the dispute is centred on the phrase "US and South
Vietnamese" which is perfectly OK. If it was "US and South Vietnam", then that is a different case that needs changing. Mztourist is correct. And furthermore, the specific guidance mentions "US and France", not "US and French" which is
3408:
As I said above "losses" in the third para is incorrect and should be "battle". There is no RS that losses at Hue had any effect on US public opinion. US public opinion moved after the Tet
Offensive, how much of that was due to Hue, the Embassy, Loan, Cronkite or other things is impossible to
2656:
Other reasons for Option 4/6: It's very pertinent to mention the important context of the Tết Offensive in the first paragraph, and to mention the countries involved before listing the military branches involved and number of battalions. The dates & location were also cluttering the list
1568:
Why have you come to this page and decided that it needed your "improvements", when there are so many pages on WP that seriously need improvement? Then having met some resistance with me you are spending all this time arguing with me to try to get your way, first noticeboards and now DR.
2664:
with a (very) brief summary of its progression. I also don't really think that the list of battalion numbers is needed in the very first paragraph. There's slight redundancy with a sentence or two from the rest of the lead, but those can be removed/modified if this lead paragraph is
3311:
The Marine Corps' military operations in urban terrain doctrine recognizes that tactical success does not necessarily translate to strategic victory... the Battle of Huế in the Vietnam War, when Marines defeated an enemy that sought to put up a good fight but never expected to
2705:
of Option 1 doesn't really define much about the battle or give much context" I disagree. Option 2 just replaces dashes with commas, so no real difference at all; Option 3 just moves the dates from the second sentence to the first; while Option 4 is unwieldy, Hue was arguably
2089:
It looks like your comment is suggesting that you would support the RfC statement in the affirmative (so not "No"), but that you think that there are no more instances to fix? Or do you mean that the quoted clause isn't required, so the article is technically compliant? —
3076:
Would you prefer that we only leave up the three original options that we agree are the worst options? That wouldn’t help anyone and that wouldn’t help the article.Our drafts would have been better formulated pre-RfC if you decided to engage in constructive conversation
2150:"French" the way "US/U.S." is commonly used, therefore there is nothing wrong with using it that way. The only thing MOS:USA says is if it's used "as a noun instead of an adjective" with the example given being "France and the United States, not France and the U.S."
3149:
I apologise - I was editing on a laptop for a while earlier and my response somehow went into the wrong section. "It means that I'm not here to decide which is the best wording. This is a dispute that can be resolved between you and appears to be close to doing so.
2886:
What? Why can't I add another option to the RfC, if the change is timestamped. It's not misleading nor misrepresenting your comments, and the RfC hadn't even been open for an hour.I added the fourth option because I took your specific criticism and iterated on it,
3352:, although it’s not technically incorrect in that the actual recapture of the city (in the narrow sense) was urban by definition. But it would still be nice to mention it as a major element of the battle in some way. Also, the minor change can be made to replace
1208:
Though not having examined the edits at issue, I will say that GA status is about the weakest argument one can make in such situations. GA is a lightweight process carried out by one editor with a checklist, and general MOS compliance isn't even on that list.
3022:
No, but it's the kind of iteration that a proper discussion would have resulted in. I added 4 & 6 to replace 2 & 3, which we both thought could be improved. This is all in the early stage of the RfC, and I won't really be adding more like this. —
316:
197:
300:
193:
332:
201:
1113:
You have found this page and decided to make changes to it that I don't agree with and so you've chosen to elevate the issue to noticeboards and bringing in the GA reviewer to try to get support for your position seems like you are trying to
3494:, cannot be found in the reference of Bowden (2017), pages of 42–44. The citation is therefore moved to the preceding sentences that are extensively cited in the source. I will support the quoted claim with other reliable sources though.
2912:: Probably wasn't the best way to do it, but it's right to try to find a compromise and you can always change your vote. Had I arrived here sooner, I would have commented that only including three options was unnecessarily restrictive.
284:
189:
2168:
and as noted above, in MOS:NOTUSA "May be too informal" is subjective and using U.S is commonly accepted particularly when the other country's name cannot be abbreviated or doesn't have a commonly known abbreviation.
2645:
Option 5: resolves some of the issues described above. It still has an extraneous subordinate clause in the second-sentence list, a numeral-number word mismatch, and the first sentence structure with
3557:
3044:, there's no need to get upset about it. An RfC is just an RfC. I agree the options could be clearer, but this is about compromise wording, which won't be achieved unless you both make the effort.
3295:
Many of the Marines of Task Force X-Ray had little or no urban combat experience and the U.S. troops were not trained for urban close-quarters combat, so this battle was especially tough for them.
3547:
1623:
Working on the lead of a major article (and a GA at that) is improving the encyclopedia. Your unwillingness to discuss and your attempts to shoo others away is not improving the encyclopedia. —
1762:
compliant. "May be too informal" is subjective and using U.S is commonly accepted particularly when the other country's name cannot be abbreviated or doesn't have a commonly known abbreviation.
3567:
3552:
3542:
2583:
1161:. You said that you don’t even think this is important. If you have no articulated reason against the changes, and you don’t think it’s important, then what are you doing? This is literally
2790:- Does the best job of summarizing the pertinent and important facts of the battle; specific numbers of battalions on each side is administrivia and not relevant for the lede. The lede for
3562:
2933:
I didn't mean to imply a limit on the number of options, but given that there was no constructive criticism or iteration in the previous discussion, I could only include the current
2593:
added Option 4, 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC); added Option 5, 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC); added Option 6, 09:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC); deprecating Options 2 & 3, 09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
961:
Unnecessary changes as US is not too informal as used. As I said, this recently passed GA review and neither the reviewer then, nor I now, believe that such changes are required.
227:
3537:
3008:
seriously? Another Option added? I have just finished updating my comments to cover Option 4 and change my vote to Option 5. Is this how RFC votes are supposed to proceed?
1587:, and you don’t have priority on any articles over other editors. Your insistence that other editors spend their time away from this article and attempt to shoo me away is
634:
3532:
1079:
No, I'm not letting go, I'm saying that I don't understand why you feel this is so important, when there are so many other more important things to do on and off WP.
3607:
624:
1639:
You think that your work is improving the encyclopedia, I don't. Certainly all your arguing here and trying to harass me on my own Talk page isn't an improvement.
3305:
has been compared to the Battle of Huế. Both battles were fought in close quarters in an urban setting where the enemy ensconced itself in the midst of civilians
1325:
The first sentence of the lead paragraph doesn’t really define much about the battle or give much context, while the second sentence of the lead is a confusing
1834:
the oppressed South Vietnamese population would then spontaneously rise up and overthrow the Thiệu-Kỳ government and that this would force the U.S. to withdraw
508:, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the
3612:
723:
600:
3527:
3462:
What do you mean define the links? Do you mean to wikilink the first instances of those terms in the article? Or define the abbreviations? Something like
543:
440:
2634:
with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses. There's also a mismatch in the second sentence between numerical numbers (
1899:
for the reasons listed above. U.S. among other countries sticks out like a sore thumb. Plus we have the poiicy on how to use it, so we need to use it.
3622:
3602:
2969:
You can add it. I'm not somehow responsible for automatically adding other people's proposals. To spare you the trouble this time, I just added it. —
713:
222:
184:
3592:
3577:
533:
430:
589:
566:
2845:
2060:
3597:
3224:
MarkH21 added more options 3 times after opening the RFC survey, forcing me to revise my comments 3 times, is that proper behaviour in an RFC?
2657:
sentence, and could easily be moved to another part of the first paragraph. I'd prefer the dates in the parentheses but that's not a big deal.
689:
50:
3627:
3582:
231:
406:
2698:. I don't see any policy based argument being given as to why any changes are necessary. In relation to the comment above that the "first
3617:
2013:
1957:
3517:
2771:
February's 1,900 total casualties were at Hue, I don't regard those as heavy losses and no RS has been given that say they were heavy.
119:
3587:
3572:
1530:
I don't need to offer anything more. You say its cluttered, I don't agree with you and I don't think your proposal is an improvement.
813:
38:
32:
1022:
762:
680:
657:
2578:
and its surroundings, the combined South Vietnamese and American forces gradually recaptured the city over two months of intense
133:
129:
125:
509:
503:
463:
397:
358:
2735:
2524:
2473:
2409:
2338:
2270:
1434:
1362:
3284:
is trivial? It’s something so basic that the readers should never be linked there?Also, if it’s incorrect, then what does the
159:
3522:
2235:
Please indicate your preferred option by number. Suggested modifications are also welcome. Thanks. 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1186:
one variant throughout? There may be other examples." It would seem that I then missed an example in my final read through:
2799:
599:-related subjects on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
983:
used in the rest of the article, as required by MOS:NOTUSA) is informal, but it is, and that’s the point of that part of
2891:. The ultimate goal here is to find a common ground with the best possible encyclopedia wording that we can agree on. —
2620:: There's a combination of issues with the first option and important context that is added in the other three options:
1583:
Why should you somehow have priority in editing here with your preferred version and other editors should go elsewhere?
2630:
doesn't really define much about the battle or give much context, while the second sentence of the lead is a confusing
1839:
according to South Vietnamese law, no U.S. flag was permitted to be flown without an accompanying South Vietnamese flag
1609:
All this time you're spending arguing over what? Is this really important? Is this really improving the encyclopedia?
795:
90:
2686:; fixed wrong word & ranked Option 4, 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC); ranked Option 5 & 6 09:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2262:
1354:
2532:
2481:
2417:
2346:
2278:
1442:
1370:
873:? An article can never be modified, even if parts are against global community consensus, once it becomes a GA? —
2536:
2485:
2421:
2350:
2282:
1905:
1446:
1374:
774:
2985:
Deprecating Options 2 & 3, since Mztourist and I both don't really think it's better than other options. —
2812:
2795:
2155:
1976:
478:
457:
3251:
31 January 1968 – 2 March 1968 isn't two months as stated in Options 2, 3, 4 and 6, its one month and 3 days.
1297:
Incidentally, surely MOS compliance should be on the GA list? Most assessors take some regard to it already.
1094:
165:
3277:
the linked urban fighting is trivial and incorrect as the US Army fought in the countryside west of the city
2005:
1949:
226:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
2723:
1588:
1197:
672:
651:
292:
1549:
1162:
688:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
405:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
20:
2582:. The battle was one of the longest and bloodiest of the war, and the heavy losses negatively affected
2113:
The quoted part of MOS:NOTUSA doesn’t exclude adjectival forms of full country names. Also, why would
106:
3097:
Yes, then a clear preference would emerge from the Options or a compromise agreed in the Discussion.
2791:
2762:
2035:
1919:
1900:
1888:
3135:
And what does that mean? MarkH21 can be frustrated but I can't? He can just keep reframing the RFC?
1093:
If you don’t think it’s important, then why are you adamantly against it? Seriously feels like some
42:
3499:
3492:
Ho Chi Minh, Phạm Văn Đồng, Võ Nguyên Giáp and Ngô Đình Diệm had all attended the lycée in the city
3452:
3414:
3339:
3256:
3229:
3200:
3140:
3102:
3067:
3013:
2960:
2877:
2820:
2776:
2746:
2731:
2185:
2174:
2165:
2151:
2108:
1990:
1972:
1928:
1767:
1644:
1614:
1574:
1535:
1505:
1302:
1168:
The noticeboard post is a general question, not a post to direct users to this particular issue. —
1123:
1084:
1050:
1012:
966:
902:
821:
2567:
2528:
2477:
2453:
2413:
2342:
2274:
2000:
1944:
1438:
1366:
1188:
780:
3392:) isn’t specific to Option 6 since it’s already in the third paragraph of the lead right now. —
3389:
3299:
3289:
2559:
2445:
2393:
2322:
1418:
2661:
1478:
1193:
988:
897:
in the version that you changed? You changed US to American, the MOS says nothing about that.
3215:
3185:
2194:
as a noun adjunct is grammatically wrong. I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be preferred if
1872:
1795:
while the other country names are in full adjectival form is slightly awkward too, e.g. the
776:
745:
276:
3210:
And maybe you have to rewrite your vote a bit; consensus building takes time and effort. --
2955:
If MarkH21 is allowed to add more options then why isn't my uniterated Option being added?
2888:
1699:
may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (
1691:
When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence,
1584:
1115:
1042:
926:
may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (
918:
When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence,
2759:
2031:
1885:
1545:
308:
3495:
3448:
3410:
3335:
3269:
3252:
3225:
3196:
3174:
3136:
3098:
3063:
3041:
3009:
2956:
2873:
2816:
2772:
2742:
2727:
2170:
2084:
1986:
1924:
1763:
1640:
1610:
1570:
1531:
1501:
1474:
1298:
1261:
1215:
1119:
1080:
1046:
1008:
962:
898:
858:
837:
817:
595:
494:
389:
581:
560:
3511:
3281:
3163:
3155:
3125:
3049:
2917:
2716:
2579:
2563:
2516:
2508:
2461:
2449:
2401:
2397:
2389:
2381:
2330:
2326:
2318:
2310:
2254:
1460:
1426:
1422:
1414:
1406:
1346:
1783:
in the same sentence as other country names is informal, and there's no real reason
1023:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#When aren’t US/U.S. abbreviations too informal?
3470:
3444:
3394:
3362:
3317:
3083:
3025:
2987:
2971:
2939:
2893:
2865:
2851:
2674:
2232:
Which of the following versions of the first lead paragraph should be implemented?
2208:
2135:
2122:
2092:
2066:
1846:
1792:
1704:
1625:
1593:
1554:
1516:
1485:
1282:
1239:
1170:
1099:
1065:
1027:
993:
947:
931:
890:
875:
2121:? In the latter, at least they’re both just nouns. In the former, it’s a mix of a
324:
2660:
Option 6: Establishes more context surrounding the significance of the event per
1700:
1696:
1692:
927:
923:
919:
3503:
3479:
3456:
3418:
3403:
3371:
3343:
3326:
3260:
3233:
3219:
3211:
3204:
3189:
3181:
3167:
3144:
3129:
3106:
3092:
3071:
3053:
3034:
3017:
2996:
2980:
2964:
2948:
2921:
2902:
2881:
2860:
2824:
2803:
2780:
2765:
2750:
2683:
2571:
2512:
2457:
2377:
2306:
2250:
2217:
2178:
2159:
2144:
2101:
2075:
2039:
2018:
1994:
1980:
1962:
1932:
1910:
1891:
1876:
1868:
1855:
1771:
1648:
1634:
1618:
1602:
1578:
1563:
1539:
1525:
1509:
1494:
1402:
1342:
1306:
1291:
1266:
1248:
1220:
1201:
1179:
1127:
1108:
1088:
1074:
1054:
1036:
1016:
1002:
970:
956:
906:
884:
842:
825:
1813:
in the same sentence as mentions of other countries. For instance, the article
1329:
with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses:
1940:
1864:
1759:
1684:
1677:
984:
912:
894:
864:
849:
484:
379:
2540:
2489:
2469:
2425:
2405:
2354:
2334:
2286:
2266:
1450:
1430:
1378:
1358:
1275:
1256:
1228:
1210:
832:
113:
2872:
is this acceptable behaviour when I am engaging in good faith in this RFC?
3382:
the heavy losses negatively affected American public perception of the war
373:
352:
3159:
3151:
3121:
3058:
3045:
3005:
2928:
2913:
2869:
778:
685:
2575:
2520:
2465:
2385:
2314:
2258:
1464:
1410:
1350:
2712:
2631:
1326:
402:
1824:
U.S. forces had been committed to combat operations on Vietnamese soil
1884:
if WP has a guideline such as MOS:NOTUSA, why would we not apply it?
831:
You want to remove the bullets from an infobox on military conflict?
3348:
I see what you mean. I’d be fine with removing the link & word
1389:
Since it’s a major edit, I’d propose the following lead paragraph:
401:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
214:
178:
2484:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
2420:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
2349:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
2281:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
1445:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
1373:
battalions, totaling 18 battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
1041:
You clearly feel this is something very important, which I don't:
2868:
Why are you now adding a 4th option after I posted my comments?
1829:
the South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in the city were unprepared
3447:
you have to define all the links that you deleted in the lede.
1711:
be applied to the article? In other words, should instances of
3315:
Was this battle not a significant example of urban warfare? —
2889:
something that happens in normal consensus-building discussion
2228:
Request for comment on wording the first paragraph of the lead
945:
where an adjective is needed, then we can use that as well. —
911:
The only things that I changed were for the following part of
781:
739:
141:
1758:
further changes required, the page as it stands now is fully
323:
307:
291:
275:
1514:
You have no more thoughts or discussion to offer at all? —
112:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s
2309:. Taking place between 31 January and 2 March 1968 in the
2515:. Between 31 January and 2 March 1968, in and around the
2206:
in that cases. That’s not an exclusion of other cases. —
1787:
implementing such changes. The grammatical mismatch when
1025:.Your snide remark is unnecessary and not appreciated. —
1746:, with justifications. Thanks. 07:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
684:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
3464:
1815:
1797:
869:
83:
2376:, was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
2305:, was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
2249:– was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
1401:, was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
1341:– was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
1059:
I appreciate you letting it go if you don’t care. The
3558:
Southeast Asian military history task force articles
3078:
2840:
2839:: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section
2511:
was one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the
2054:: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section
593:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
3548:
North American military history task force articles
2794:doesn't list the number of regiments on each side.
258:
3568:United States military history task force articles
3553:GA-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
2554:(31 January 1968 – 2 March 1968), also called the
2440:(31 January 1968 – 2 March 1968), also called the
2372:(31 January 1968 – 2 March 1968), also called the
1397:(31 January 1968 – 2 March 1968), also called the
3543:GA-Class North American military history articles
3563:GA-Class United States military history articles
3388:. Otherwise, the sentence (in reference to the
1391:
1331:
916:
2649:is slightly awkward. I agree though, that the
2253:. Between 31 January and 2 March 1968, in the
1345:. Between 31 January and 2 March 1968, in the
812:Altered result in the infobox to conform with
48:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
3309:
3303:
3293:
3275:
2548:
2497:
2434:
2366:
2295:
2239:
1918:since there is a policy on how to use it per
1689:
1157:reverting to your preferred version, besides
789:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
2574:. After initially losing control of most of
1063:was a silly attempt at a put-down though. —
1007:OK if you really have nothing better to do.
240:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
3390:“Impact on American public opinion” section
2653:from the first four options is unnecessary.
317:Southeast Asian military history task force
3538:Asian military history task force articles
2721:
2535:battalions, defeated 10 battalions of the
2055:
1676:Request for comment on the application of
1234:
816:. The bullet points should go too. Regards
646:
609:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Southeast Asia
555:
452:
347:
301:North American military history task force
255:
173:
62:
15:
2558:, was a major military engagement in the
2444:, was a major military engagement in the
1237:? This one isn’t about MOS compliance. —
1233:It looks like your comment was meant for
333:United States military history task force
3533:GA-Class Asian military history articles
2404:. Over the course of two months, eleven
2333:. Over the course of two months, eleven
1727:where another country's full name (e.g.
1548:because there’s no arguing through your
975:You might not think that something like
220:This article is within the scope of the
3288:currently in the lead refer to? Or the
2388:, the battle was a major engagement in
2317:, the battle was a major engagement in
1999:"American and South Vietnamese." Done.
1061:if you really have nothing better to do
648:
557:
454:
349:
175:
3608:Low-importance Southeast Asia articles
3491:
3428:
3424:
3385:
3381:
3357:
3353:
3349:
3285:
2937:and my original two draft versions. —
2650:
2646:
2639:
2635:
2460:. After two months of fighting in the
2203:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2130:
2126:
2118:
2114:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1810:
1809:.There are still several instances of
1806:
1802:
1788:
1780:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1552:and refusal to articulate anything. —
1458:
1158:
1060:
980:
979:(which isn’t even consistent with the
976:
942:
938:
799:when more than 5 sections are present.
230:. To use this banner, please see the
2584:American public perception of the war
1807:American and South Vietnamese victory
1735:) is mentioned in the same sentence?
1467:between 31 January and 2 March 1968,
243:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
3486:Material not mentioned in the source
2711:sentence of the lead is a confusing
2202:are available.Also, MOS:NOTUSA says
1429:. Over the course of two months, 11
698:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Cold War
678:This article is within the scope of
587:This article is within the scope of
395:This article is within the scope of
147:
145:
3613:WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
3290:“Recapture of southern Huế“ section
612:Template:WikiProject Southeast Asia
518:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Vietnam
415:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History
164:It is of interest to the following
3528:GA-Class military history articles
863:What kind of reason for violating
814:Template:Infobox military conflict
14:
1457:The dates could also be moved to
793:may be automatically archived by
285:Asian military history task force
41:. If you can improve it further,
3623:Mid-importance Cold War articles
3603:GA-Class Southeast Asia articles
2841:#Decluttering the lead paragraph
2623:Issues with Option 1: The first
744:
671:
650:
580:
559:
487:
477:
456:
382:
372:
351:
213:
177:
146:
105:
19:
3593:Mid-importance Vietnam articles
3578:Low-importance history articles
3286:intense house-to-house fighting
2647:, during the Tet Offensive was
2525:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
2474:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
2410:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
2339:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
2271:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
2129:) with a full adjectival form (
2030:as per others, too colloquial.
1803:US and South Vietnamese victory
1435:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
1413:, it was a major engagement in
1363:Army of the Republic of Vietnam
1321:Decluttering the lead paragraph
1153:You haven’t even give a reason
977:US and South Vietnamese victory
718:This article has been rated as
629:This article has been rated as
538:This article has been rated as
435:This article has been rated as
3380:Regarding the criticism about
1469:instead of the parenthetical.
29:has been listed as one of the
1:
3598:All WikiProject Vietnam pages
3518:Knowledge (XXG) good articles
3504:21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
3280:What do you mean the link to
2468:and its surroundings, eleven
2117:be even more acceptable than
1483:let me know your thoughts. —
1280:Moving from section below. —
870:"passed GA review as drafted"
701:Template:WikiProject Cold War
692:and see a list of open tasks.
603:and see a list of open tasks.
409:and see a list of open tasks.
3628:Cold War task force articles
3583:WikiProject History articles
3158:) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)"
1701:France and the United States
1021:Posting general question at
928:France and the United States
826:15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
521:Template:WikiProject Vietnam
418:Template:WikiProject History
223:Military history WikiProject
3644:
3618:GA-Class Cold War articles
2533:United States Marine Corps
2482:United States Marine Corps
2418:United States Marine Corps
2347:United States Marine Corps
2279:United States Marine Corps
1443:United States Marine Corps
1371:United States Marine Corps
724:project's importance scale
635:project's importance scale
590:WikiProject Southeast Asia
544:project's importance scale
441:project's importance scale
3588:GA-Class Vietnam articles
3573:GA-Class history articles
3480:09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
3457:09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
3384:, we can remove the word
1585:You don’t own the article
717:
666:
628:
575:
537:
472:
434:
367:
331:
315:
299:
283:
254:
246:military history articles
208:
172:
65:
61:
3419:06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
3404:05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
3372:05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
3344:05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
3327:05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
3261:14:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3234:14:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3220:13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3205:12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3190:12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3168:14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3145:11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3130:11:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3107:11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3093:11:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3072:11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3054:10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3035:09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3018:09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2997:09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2981:09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2965:09:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2949:08:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2922:08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2903:08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2882:08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2861:07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2825:12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
2804:14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2781:14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2766:12:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2751:11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2684:07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2537:People's Army of Vietnam
2486:People's Army of Vietnam
2422:People's Army of Vietnam
2351:People's Army of Vietnam
2283:People's Army of Vietnam
2218:07:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
2190:I didn’t say that using
2179:06:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
2164:I completely agree with
2160:05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
2145:05:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
2102:07:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2076:07:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2040:19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
2019:19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
1995:05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
1981:05:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
1963:21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
1933:11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
1911:15:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1892:12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1877:12:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1856:08:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1772:07:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1447:People's Army of Vietnam
1375:People's Army of Vietnam
1307:15:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1292:07:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
500:This article is part of
3274:Regarding the criticism
3120:An RfC is just an RfC.
2846:its offshoot ANI thread
2523:, 11 battalions of the
2115:US and South Vietnamese
2061:its offshoot ANI thread
1649:09:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1635:08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1619:08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1603:08:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1579:08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1564:08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1540:08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1526:08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1510:08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1500:No, its fine as it is.
1495:08:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1267:11:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1249:11:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1221:11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1202:12:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1180:08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1128:08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1109:08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1089:08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1075:07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1055:07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1037:07:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1017:07:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1003:07:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
971:07:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
957:07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
907:07:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
885:07:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
843:10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
615:Southeast Asia articles
259:Associated task forces:
3314:
3307:
3297:
3279:
2651:totaling 18 battalions
2588:
2545:
2494:
2480:battalions, and three
2430:
2416:battalions, and three
2380:. Taking place in the
2359:
2345:battalions, and three
2291:
2277:battalions, and three
2056:#MOS:NOTUSA violations
1943:makes a lot of sense.
1709:
1455:
1441:battalions, and three
1405:. Taking place in the
1383:
1369:battalions, and three
936:
796:Lowercase sigmabot III
328:
312:
296:
280:
154:This article is rated
3523:Warfare good articles
2531:battalions and three
1544:Okay, then I’ll open
987:.Pinging GA reviewer
327:
311:
295:
279:
158:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
39:good article criteria
33:Warfare good articles
2792:Battle of Gettysburg
2119:US and South Vietnam
1738:Please respond with
1459:Taking place in the
1235:the previous section
681:WikiProject Cold War
91:Good article nominee
2813:NorthBySouthBaranof
2796:NorthBySouthBaranof
2263:Thừa Thiên Province
1705:France and the U.S.
1355:Thừa Thiên Province
1159:unnecessary changes
932:France and the U.S.
504:WikiProject Vietnam
398:WikiProject History
3300:“Analysis“ section
2713:mess of blue links
2632:mess of blue links
2529:United States Army
2503:, also called the
2478:United States Army
2414:United States Army
2343:United States Army
2301:, also called the
2275:United States Army
2245:– also called the
1439:United States Army
1367:United States Army
1337:– also called the
1327:mess of blue links
1189:errare humanum est
329:
313:
297:
281:
228:list of open tasks
160:content assessment
66:Article milestones
3475:
3399:
3367:
3322:
3088:
3081:when prompted. —
3030:
2992:
2976:
2944:
2898:
2856:
2739:
2726:comment added by
2679:
2662:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH
2594:
2213:
2140:
2097:
2071:
1985:Exactly! regards
1851:
1719:be replaced with
1630:
1598:
1559:
1521:
1490:
1294:
1287:
1269:
1251:
1244:
1175:
1104:
1070:
1032:
998:
952:
939:United States ___
880:
803:
802:
768:
767:
738:
737:
734:
733:
730:
729:
704:Cold War articles
645:
644:
641:
640:
554:
553:
550:
549:
451:
450:
447:
446:
346:
345:
342:
341:
338:
337:
232:full instructions
140:
139:
134:February 24, 2023
130:February 24, 2022
126:February 24, 2021
100:
99:
57:
3635:
3478:
3473:
3467:
3402:
3397:
3370:
3365:
3325:
3320:
3273:
3178:
3091:
3086:
3033:
3028:
2995:
2990:
2979:
2974:
2947:
2942:
2932:
2901:
2896:
2859:
2854:
2848:
2682:
2677:
2592:
2517:South Vietnamese
2462:South Vietnamese
2382:South Vietnamese
2311:South Vietnamese
2255:South Vietnamese
2216:
2211:
2189:
2143:
2138:
2131:South Vietnamese
2112:
2100:
2095:
2088:
2074:
2069:
2063:
2016:
2008:
1960:
1952:
1863:per MarkH21 and
1854:
1849:
1818:
1800:
1733:South Vietnamese
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1633:
1628:
1601:
1596:
1562:
1557:
1524:
1519:
1493:
1488:
1482:
1461:South Vietnamese
1407:South Vietnamese
1347:South Vietnamese
1290:
1285:
1279:
1272:
1254:
1247:
1242:
1232:
1225:
1178:
1173:
1107:
1102:
1095:ownership issues
1073:
1068:
1035:
1030:
1001:
996:
955:
950:
937:If you’d prefer
933:
929:
925:
921:
883:
878:
872:
862:
798:
782:
759:
758:
748:
740:
706:
705:
702:
699:
696:
675:
668:
667:
662:
654:
647:
617:
616:
613:
610:
607:
584:
577:
576:
571:
563:
556:
526:
525:
524:Vietnam articles
522:
519:
516:
497:
492:
491:
490:
481:
474:
473:
468:
460:
453:
423:
422:
421:history articles
419:
416:
413:
392:
387:
386:
385:
376:
369:
368:
363:
355:
348:
266:
256:
248:
247:
244:
241:
238:
237:Military history
217:
210:
209:
204:
185:Military history
181:
174:
157:
151:
150:
149:
142:
109:
86:
84:January 29, 2020
63:
46:
23:
16:
3643:
3642:
3638:
3637:
3636:
3634:
3633:
3632:
3508:
3507:
3488:
3476:
3469:
3463:
3442:
3400:
3393:
3368:
3361:
3334:doctrine from.
3323:
3316:
3298:Similarly, the
3267:
3172:
3089:
3082:
3031:
3024:
2993:
2986:
2977:
2970:
2945:
2938:
2926:
2899:
2892:
2857:
2850:
2844:
2833:
2704:
2701:
2680:
2673:
2640:four battalions
2629:
2626:
2600:
2539:(PAVN) and the
2488:(PAVN) and the
2424:(PAVN) and the
2353:(PAVN) and the
2285:(PAVN) and the
2230:
2214:
2207:
2183:
2141:
2134:
2106:
2098:
2091:
2082:
2072:
2065:
2059:
2048:
2012:
2004:
1956:
1948:
1921:Canterbury Tail
1902:Canterbury Tail
1852:
1845:
1843:
1814:
1796:
1752:
1681:
1631:
1624:
1599:
1592:
1560:
1553:
1522:
1515:
1491:
1484:
1472:
1449:(PAVN) and the
1377:(PAVN) and the
1323:
1288:
1281:
1273:
1245:
1238:
1226:
1176:
1169:
1105:
1098:
1071:
1064:
1033:
1026:
999:
992:
953:
946:
881:
874:
868:
856:
854:
810:
794:
783:
777:
753:
703:
700:
697:
694:
693:
660:
614:
611:
608:
605:
604:
569:
523:
520:
517:
514:
513:
493:
488:
486:
466:
420:
417:
414:
411:
410:
388:
383:
381:
361:
264:
245:
242:
239:
236:
235:
187:
155:
82:
12:
11:
5:
3641:
3639:
3631:
3630:
3625:
3620:
3615:
3610:
3605:
3600:
3595:
3590:
3585:
3580:
3575:
3570:
3565:
3560:
3555:
3550:
3545:
3540:
3535:
3530:
3525:
3520:
3510:
3509:
3487:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3472:
3441:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3396:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3364:
3330:
3329:
3319:
3264:
3263:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3170:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3085:
3038:
3037:
3027:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2989:
2973:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2941:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2895:
2863:
2853:
2832:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2806:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2753:
2702:
2699:
2688:
2687:
2676:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2658:
2654:
2643:
2627:
2624:
2599:
2596:
2590:
2589:
2580:urban fighting
2546:
2495:
2432:
2361:
2292:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2210:
2186:Fortunatestars
2181:
2166:Fortunatestars
2152:Fortunatestars
2137:
2109:Fortunatestars
2104:
2094:
2079:
2078:
2068:
2047:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
1973:Fortunatestars
1965:
1935:
1913:
1894:
1879:
1858:
1848:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1820:
1774:
1751:
1748:
1680:
1674:
1672:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1627:
1595:
1556:
1518:
1487:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1284:
1255:Stupid phone.
1241:
1205:
1204:
1172:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1101:
1067:
1029:
995:
949:
893:What violates
877:
853:
847:
846:
845:
809:
806:
801:
800:
788:
785:
784:
779:
775:
773:
770:
769:
766:
765:
755:
754:
749:
743:
736:
735:
732:
731:
728:
727:
720:Mid-importance
716:
710:
709:
707:
690:the discussion
676:
664:
663:
661:Mid‑importance
655:
643:
642:
639:
638:
631:Low-importance
627:
621:
620:
618:
606:Southeast Asia
601:the discussion
596:Southeast Asia
585:
573:
572:
570:Low‑importance
567:Southeast Asia
564:
552:
551:
548:
547:
540:Mid-importance
536:
530:
529:
527:
499:
498:
495:Vietnam portal
482:
470:
469:
467:Mid‑importance
461:
449:
448:
445:
444:
437:Low-importance
433:
427:
426:
424:
407:the discussion
394:
393:
390:History portal
377:
365:
364:
362:Low‑importance
356:
344:
343:
340:
339:
336:
335:
330:
320:
319:
314:
304:
303:
298:
288:
287:
282:
272:
271:
269:
267:
261:
260:
252:
251:
249:
218:
206:
205:
198:Southeast Asia
182:
170:
169:
163:
152:
138:
137:
120:On this day...
110:
102:
101:
98:
97:
94:
87:
79:
78:
75:
72:
68:
67:
59:
58:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3640:
3629:
3626:
3624:
3621:
3619:
3616:
3614:
3611:
3609:
3606:
3604:
3601:
3599:
3596:
3594:
3591:
3589:
3586:
3584:
3581:
3579:
3576:
3574:
3571:
3569:
3566:
3564:
3561:
3559:
3556:
3554:
3551:
3549:
3546:
3544:
3541:
3539:
3536:
3534:
3531:
3529:
3526:
3524:
3521:
3519:
3516:
3515:
3513:
3506:
3505:
3501:
3497:
3493:
3485:
3481:
3477:
3466:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3439:
3430:
3426:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3401:
3391:
3387:
3383:
3379:
3378:
3373:
3369:
3359:
3355:
3351:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3332:
3331:
3328:
3324:
3313:
3306:
3301:
3296:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3282:urban warfare
3278:
3271:
3266:
3265:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3247:
3246:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3202:
3198:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3176:
3171:
3169:
3165:
3161:
3157:
3153:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3127:
3123:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3090:
3080:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3069:
3065:
3060:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3040:
3039:
3036:
3032:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3004:
2998:
2994:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2978:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2936:
2930:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2908:
2904:
2900:
2890:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2864:
2862:
2858:
2847:
2842:
2838:
2835:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2807:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2786:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2764:
2761:
2757:
2754:
2752:
2748:
2744:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2718:
2717:Tet Offensive
2714:
2709:
2697:
2693:
2690:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2671:
2670:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2652:
2648:
2644:
2641:
2637:
2636:11 battalions
2633:
2622:
2621:
2619:
2615:
2610:
2605:
2602:
2601:
2597:
2595:
2587:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2564:North Vietnam
2561:
2560:Tết Offensive
2557:
2553:
2552:Battle of Huế
2547:
2544:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2527:(ARVN), four
2526:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2509:Tet Offensive
2507:, during the
2506:
2502:
2501:Battle of Huế
2496:
2493:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2476:(ARVN), four
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2450:North Vietnam
2447:
2446:Tết Offensive
2443:
2439:
2438:Battle of Huế
2433:
2431:
2429:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2412:(ARVN), four
2411:
2407:
2403:
2402:United States
2399:
2398:South Vietnam
2395:
2394:Tết Offensive
2391:
2390:North Vietnam
2387:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2370:Battle of Huế
2364:
2363:
2360:
2358:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2341:(ARVN), four
2340:
2336:
2332:
2331:United States
2328:
2327:South Vietnam
2324:
2323:Tết Offensive
2320:
2319:North Vietnam
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2299:Battle of Huế
2293:
2290:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2273:(ARVN), four
2272:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2243:Battle of Huế
2238:
2237:
2236:
2233:
2227:
2219:
2215:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2196:United States
2193:
2187:
2182:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2167:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2105:
2103:
2099:
2086:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2062:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2009:
2007:
2002:
2001:SportingFlyer
1998:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1969:
1966:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1953:
1951:
1946:
1945:SportingFlyer
1942:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1917:
1914:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1853:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1794:
1791:is used as a
1790:
1786:
1782:
1779:: The use of
1778:
1775:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1747:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1734:
1730:
1729:South Vietnam
1726:
1722:
1721:United States
1718:
1714:
1708:
1688:
1686:
1679:
1675:
1673:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1480:
1476:
1470:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1437:(ARVN), four
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:South Vietnam
1424:
1423:United States
1420:
1419:Tết Offensive
1416:
1415:North Vietnam
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:Battle of Huế
1390:
1387:
1382:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1365:(ARVN), four
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1335:Battle of Huế
1330:
1328:
1320:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1277:
1271:
1270:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1246:
1236:
1230:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
954:
944:
940:
935:
914:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
888:
887:
886:
882:
871:
866:
860:
851:
848:
844:
841:
840:
836:
835:
830:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
815:
807:
805:
797:
792:
787:
786:
772:
771:
764:
761:
760:
757:
756:
752:
747:
742:
741:
725:
721:
715:
712:
711:
708:
691:
687:
683:
682:
677:
674:
670:
669:
665:
659:
656:
653:
649:
636:
632:
626:
623:
622:
619:
602:
598:
597:
592:
591:
586:
583:
579:
578:
574:
568:
565:
562:
558:
545:
541:
535:
532:
531:
528:
511:
507:
506:
505:
496:
485:
483:
480:
476:
475:
471:
465:
462:
459:
455:
442:
438:
432:
429:
428:
425:
408:
404:
400:
399:
391:
380:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
360:
357:
354:
350:
334:
326:
322:
321:
318:
310:
306:
305:
302:
294:
290:
289:
286:
278:
274:
273:
270:
268:
263:
262:
257:
253:
250:
233:
229:
225:
224:
219:
216:
212:
211:
207:
203:
202:United States
199:
195:
194:North America
191:
186:
183:
180:
176:
171:
167:
161:
153:
144:
143:
135:
131:
127:
123:
121:
115:
111:
108:
104:
103:
95:
93:
92:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
60:
55:
53:
52:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
27:Battle of Huế
25:
22:
18:
17:
3489:
3443:
3429:heavy losses
3310:
3304:
3294:
3292:describing:
3276:
3248:
3119:
2934:
2909:
2836:
2808:
2787:
2755:
2722:— Preceding
2707:
2695:
2691:
2665:implemented.
2617:
2613:
2608:
2603:
2591:
2562:launched by
2556:Siege of Huế
2555:
2551:
2549:
2505:Siege of Huế
2504:
2500:
2498:
2448:launched by
2442:Siege of Huế
2441:
2437:
2435:
2374:Siege of Huế
2373:
2369:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2303:Siege of Huế
2302:
2298:
2296:
2294:
2247:Siege of Huế
2246:
2242:
2240:
2234:
2231:
2123:noun adjunct
2051:
2027:
2011:
2003:
1967:
1955:
1947:
1937:
1920:
1915:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1881:
1860:
1793:noun adjunct
1784:
1776:
1755:
1743:
1739:
1737:
1710:
1690:
1682:
1671:
1550:WP:OWNERSHIP
1479:Gog the Mild
1471:
1456:
1399:Siege of Huế
1398:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1339:Siege of Huế
1338:
1334:
1332:
1324:
1262:
1257:
1216:
1211:
1194:Gog the Mild
1187:
1167:
1163:WP:OWNERSHIP
1154:
1152:
989:Gog the Mild
943:American ___
917:
855:
838:
833:
811:
804:
790:
750:
719:
679:
630:
594:
588:
539:
510:project page
502:
501:
436:
396:
221:
166:WikiProjects
117:
89:
49:
47:
43:please do so
31:
30:
26:
3427:instead of
3423:Okay, then
3409:determine.
3308:and quotes
2572:Vietnam War
2570:during the
2513:Vietnam War
2458:Vietnam War
2456:during the
2378:Vietnam War
2307:Vietnam War
2251:Vietnam War
1805:instead of
1798:old version
1683:Should the
1403:Vietnam War
1343:Vietnam War
3512:Categories
3490:The text,
3354:two months
2935:status quo
2843:above and
2831:Discussion
2760:Buckshot06
2470:battalions
2406:battalions
2335:battalions
2267:battalions
2204:especially
2058:above and
2046:Discussion
2032:VeritasVox
1941:MOS:NOTUSA
1886:Buckshot06
1865:MOS:NOTUSA
1760:MOS:NOTUSA
1685:MOS:NOTUSA
1678:MOS:NOTUSA
1589:disruptive
1431:battalions
1359:battalions
985:MOS:NOTUSA
913:MOS:NOTUSA
895:MOS:NOTUSA
865:MOS:NOTUSA
852:violations
850:MOS:NOTUSA
124:column on
37:under the
3496:Ltncanada
3449:Mztourist
3411:Mztourist
3358:one month
3336:Mztourist
3270:Mztourist
3253:Mztourist
3226:Mztourist
3197:Mztourist
3175:Mztourist
3137:Mztourist
3099:Mztourist
3064:Mztourist
3042:Mztourist
3010:Mztourist
2957:Mztourist
2874:Mztourist
2817:Idealigic
2773:Mztourist
2743:Mztourist
2728:Mztourist
2703:paragraph
2628:paragraph
2568:Việt Cộng
2541:Viet Cong
2490:Viet Cong
2454:Việt Cộng
2426:Viet Cong
2355:Viet Cong
2287:Viet Cong
2171:Mztourist
2085:Mztourist
1987:Mztourist
1925:Idealigic
1816:currently
1764:Mztourist
1641:Mztourist
1611:Mztourist
1571:Mztourist
1532:Mztourist
1502:Mztourist
1475:Mztourist
1451:Viet Cong
1379:Viet Cong
1299:MapReader
1165:behavior.
1120:Mztourist
1081:Mztourist
1047:Mztourist
1009:Mztourist
963:Mztourist
899:Mztourist
859:Mztourist
818:Keith-264
763:Archive 1
114:Main Page
3440:Post-RfC
3302:states:
2809:Option 6
2788:Option 6
2756:Option 6
2736:contribs
2724:unsigned
2700:sentence
2696:Option 1
2692:Option 5
2625:sentence
2618:Option 1
2614:Option 5
2609:Option 4
2604:Option 6
2566:and the
2519:city of
2464:city of
2452:and the
2400:and the
2396:against
2384:city of
2329:and the
2325:against
2313:city of
2257:city of
2200:American
1725:American
1687:clause:
1463:city of
1421:against
1409:city of
1349:city of
791:180 days
751:Archives
695:Cold War
686:Cold War
658:Cold War
156:GA-class
51:reassess
3445:MarkH21
3249:Comment
2910:Comment
2866:MarkH21
2837:Comment
2472:of the
2408:of the
2337:of the
2269:of the
2052:Comment
1785:against
1433:of the
1361:of the
891:MarkH21
722:on the
633:on the
542:on the
515:Vietnam
464:Vietnam
439:on the
412:History
403:History
359:History
116:in the
74:Process
3425:battle
3212:MrClog
3182:MrClog
2763:(talk)
2598:Survey
1889:(talk)
1869:MrClog
1819:says:
1750:Survey
1703:, not
1118:here.
1116:WP:WIN
1043:WP:WIN
930:, not
162:scale.
132:, and
96:Listed
77:Result
3471:MarkH
3395:MarkH
3386:heavy
3363:MarkH
3356:with
3350:urban
3318:MarkH
3084:MarkH
3026:MarkH
2988:MarkH
2972:MarkH
2940:MarkH
2894:MarkH
2852:MarkH
2694:then
2675:MarkH
2616:: -->
2612:: -->
2611:: -->
2607:: -->
2606:: -->
2543:(VC).
2492:(VC).
2428:(VC).
2357:(VC).
2289:(VC).
2265:, 11
2209:MarkH
2136:MarkH
2133:). —
2093:MarkH
2067:MarkH
1847:MarkH
1626:MarkH
1594:MarkH
1555:MarkH
1546:WP:DR
1517:MarkH
1486:MarkH
1453:(VC).
1381:(VC).
1357:, 11
1283:MarkH
1240:MarkH
1171:MarkH
1100:MarkH
1066:MarkH
1028:MarkH
994:MarkH
991:. —
948:MarkH
941:over
876:MarkH
190:Asian
3500:talk
3468:? —
3465:this
3453:talk
3415:talk
3360:. —
3340:talk
3312:win.
3257:talk
3230:talk
3216:talk
3201:talk
3186:talk
3164:talk
3156:talk
3141:talk
3126:talk
3103:talk
3079:here
3068:talk
3050:talk
3014:talk
2961:talk
2918:talk
2878:talk
2849:. —
2821:talk
2811:per
2800:talk
2777:talk
2747:talk
2732:talk
2638:vs.
2550:The
2499:The
2436:The
2368:The
2297:The
2241:The
2192:U.S.
2175:talk
2156:talk
2064:. —
2036:talk
1991:talk
1977:talk
1929:talk
1907:talk
1873:talk
1867:. --
1811:U.S.
1789:U.S.
1781:U.S.
1768:talk
1715:and
1713:U.S.
1693:U.S.
1645:talk
1615:talk
1575:talk
1536:talk
1506:talk
1477:and
1425:and
1393:The
1333:The
1303:talk
1276:EEng
1229:EEng
1198:talk
1124:talk
1097:. —
1085:talk
1051:talk
1013:talk
981:U.S.
967:talk
920:U.S.
903:talk
822:talk
71:Date
3160:Deb
3152:Deb
3122:Deb
3059:Deb
3046:Deb
3006:Deb
2929:Deb
2914:Deb
2870:Deb
2708:the
2576:Huế
2521:Huế
2466:Huế
2392:'s
2386:Huế
2321:'s
2315:Huế
2259:Huế
2198:or
2028:Yes
1938:Yes
1916:Yes
1897:Yes
1882:Yes
1861:Yes
1801:'s
1777:Yes
1742:or
1740:Yes
1731:or
1723:or
1695:or
1465:Huế
1417:'s
1411:Huế
1351:Huế
1263:Eng
1217:Eng
1155:for
922:or
867:is
839:Eng
714:Mid
625:Low
534:Mid
431:Low
3514::
3502:)
3474:21
3455:)
3417:)
3398:21
3366:21
3342:)
3321:21
3259:)
3232:)
3218:)
3203:)
3188:)
3166:)
3143:)
3128:)
3105:)
3087:21
3070:)
3052:)
3029:21
3016:)
2991:21
2975:21
2963:)
2943:21
2920:)
2897:21
2880:)
2855:21
2823:)
2815:–
2802:)
2779:)
2749:)
2738:)
2734:•
2678:21
2672:—
2642:).
2261:,
2212:21
2177:)
2158:)
2139:21
2127:US
2096:21
2070:21
2038:)
1993:)
1979:)
1968:No
1931:)
1875:)
1850:21
1844:—
1770:)
1756:No
1744:No
1717:US
1707:).
1697:US
1647:)
1629:21
1617:)
1597:21
1577:)
1558:21
1538:)
1520:21
1508:)
1489:21
1353:,
1305:)
1286:21
1243:21
1200:)
1192:.
1174:21
1126:)
1103:21
1087:)
1069:21
1053:)
1045:.
1031:21
1015:)
997:21
969:)
951:21
934:).
924:US
915::
905:)
879:21
824:)
808:CE
265:/
200:/
196:/
192:/
188::
128:,
54:it
45:.
3498:(
3451:(
3431:.
3413:(
3338:(
3272::
3268:@
3255:(
3228:(
3214:(
3199:(
3184:(
3177::
3173:@
3162:(
3154:(
3139:(
3124:(
3101:(
3066:(
3048:(
3012:(
2959:(
2931::
2927:@
2916:(
2876:(
2819:(
2798:(
2775:(
2745:(
2730:(
2586:.
2188::
2184:@
2173:(
2154:(
2125:(
2111::
2107:@
2087::
2083:@
2034:(
2014:C
2010:·
2006:T
1989:(
1975:(
1958:C
1954:·
1950:T
1927:(
1871:(
1766:(
1643:(
1613:(
1573:(
1534:(
1504:(
1481::
1473:@
1301:(
1278::
1274:@
1258:E
1231::
1227:@
1212:E
1196:(
1122:(
1083:(
1049:(
1011:(
965:(
901:(
861::
857:@
834:E
820:(
726:.
637:.
546:.
512:.
443:.
234:.
168::
136:.
122:"
118:"
56:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.