Talk:Tet offensive attack on US Embassy

Specific personnel numbers and unit insignia

I don't see what the problem with including the aforementioned information would be. It is neverthless continually removed. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep inserting excessive detail not normally contained in infoboxes. There is no need to: (1) state exactly how long the battle lasted; (2) specify exactly where in the Embassy grounds the battle took place; (3) state Westmoreland and Bunker as commanders as the direct ground commanders (Rowe and O'Brien) are identified; (4) mention the staff inside the Embassy as their role in the battle is unclear; (5) provide vague details of the reinforcements as these are unclear; and (6) state that the VC captured was wounded. Please stop reinserting these details. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Simon Levchenko by this edit: [1] you are continuing to edit war this issue, rather than responding to my 15 May comment above. Stop edit warring and discuss the issue here as per WP:BRD. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't receive a notification. The documentary series Twentieth Century Battlefields, and a History Channel documentary about the US Army provost police show a bleeding VC being led by MPs. The article states the American staff armed themselves, and footage exists showing a CIA officer in combat, at the embassy, with a Beretta M-12. The reinforcements are likewise specified in this article. Simon Levchenko (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So? None of that is detail that features in an Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I’ll look at this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope it's OK to offer a comment, but I'd like to note that the article's title is grammatically problematic. The infobox uses 'Attack on the US Embassy in Saigon' which is better but a bit vague as I think the embassy was attacked several times. Something like 'Attack on the US Embassy during the Tet Offensive' might work best. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, of course it's OK. This is Wikipedia. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard. Fair point, albeit outside the scope of a GAN. (And of my interest. I rarely worry about titles. I once had an article change title three times while I was putting it through FAC. I kept out of it.) Mztourist may care to make the change. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I see 'Attack on the US Embassy during the Tet Offensive' as being the same as 'Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy'. The page name could be changed to 'Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, Saigon'. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The review:

• The article starts in the middle of the action. It could do with a proper Background section. Eg what was the Vietnam war, who was on which side, why were the Americans involved and what was their objective, when did the war start and what had its course been? Not necessarily all of this, but enough for you too be happy that that mythical being the average reader is orientated. Not sure if this helps, but the article I currently have in the GAN queue, Battle of Drepana - feel free to pick it up and assess it if the spirit moves you - has its action taking place 15 vyears into the First Punic War, so I give the following background

  In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War. Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean; Rome had recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno under its control. The immediate cause of the war was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily.

By 241 BC the war had lasted 15 years, with many changes of fortune. It had developed into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily. The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out, in the expectation of then regaining some or all of their possessions and negotiating a mutually satisfactory peace treaty. The Romans were essentially a land-based power and had gained control of most of Sicily.

Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus, the Carthaginians were defeated in large naval battles at Mylae (260 BC), Sulci (257 BC), Ecnomus (256 BC) and Cape Hermaeum (255 BC). Shortly after the last of these, the large majority of the Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with an estimated loss of 100,000 men; the instability of the Roman ships in heavy weather due to the presence of the corvus may have contributed to this disaster. In any event, they did not use the corvus thereafter. The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose another 150 ships to a storm in 253 BC. In 250 BC the Carthaginians attempted to recapture the Sicilian city of Panormus (modern Palermo) but was defeated with the loss of 20,000–30,000 men

Maybe a bit long, but I am aiming this at FAC from the start. Hopefully you get the idea.

• • OK, I have written a background para, but its pretty broad.Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Broad is fine and so far as GA is concerned, what you have written does the trick. It also helpfully introduces a couple of new sources. I would optionally suggest the slight trim below. See what you think. {{quote|The United States had been providing material support to South Vietnam since its foundation in 1954. The Vietnam War effectively began with the start of the North Vietnamese backed VC insurgency in 1959/60 and the U.S. increased its military aid and advisory support to South Vietnam in response. With the worsening military and political situation in South Vietnam, the U.S. increasingly became directly involved in the conflict. U.S. ground troops were first deployed to South Vietnam in March 1965 and by the end of that year almost 200,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed and were engaging in combat with the VC and the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN). The growing U.S. presence was matched by North Vietnam and the U.S. and its allies increasingly took over fighting the PAVN/VC main force units from the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), relegating them to pacification fighting the war in the villages with the VC. The U.S. strategy was attrition warfare and they conducted hundreds of search and destroy operations to engage the PAVN/VC, but the PAVN/VC were usually able to control the location and timing of engagements to offset U.S. tactical advantages. A number of large, but essentially inconclusive, battles took place throughout 1966 and 1967. By late 1967 Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) claimed that every statistical indicator of progress showed that its strategy was succeeding. At an address at the National Press Club on 21 November, COMUSMACV General William Westmoreland reported that, as of the end of 1967, the PAVN/VC were "unable to mount a major offensive ... I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing...We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view."

On 15 December 1967, as a sign of their confidence in the Vietnamese military, US forces turned over responsibility for the defence of Saigon to the ARVN; henceforth, U.S. forces would only be responsible for defending themselves and their facilities in the city. On the night of 30 January 1968, four Vietnamese police posts provided an outer line of defence for the US Embassy. Two military policemen from the 716th Military Police Battalion part of the 18th Military Police Brigade guarded the vehicle entrance on Mac Dinh Chi Street, inside the Chancery building two US Marines of the Marine Security Guard occupied a guard post and, due to the heightened security situation following the cancellation of the Tet Truce, another Marine was stationed on the roof of the Chancery building.

I've kept the reference to Operation Fairfax because I think its an important point that despite this massive yearlong security operation the VC were able to penetrate Saigon and carry out their attacks. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Do you know what the copyright status of the images in Vietnam is?
  • No idea, none of them are Vietnamese product Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyrights:

Governing copyright law

Further information: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights

The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.[2]

A brief summary of non-U.S. copyright laws, including guidelines on determining copyright status of the material in the United States, is available at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights.

I don't get the point, these are all images created by Americans acting in Government capacity, I don't see the relevance of Vietnamese copyright laws to any images on this page. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I started to explain, but decided that that may be wasting both of our times. I assume that you are happy to accept that things are a bit more complex than that but that I am willing to let it slide in this case.

• I am not personally keen on the images as a gallery of thumbnails in the middle of the text and feel that they would work better if a little larger and placed closer to the text they are illustrating. Do you have a strong view on this?
  • Moved them. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing which you will want to check. I have also played around a little with the images, which you will similarly want to see what you think of.

• I'm not a fan of left images and would prefer they're all on the right. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Aftermath is uncited and how many Americans were wounded?
  • I've added a ref. I don't tend to cite wounded as its unclear if that renders the soldiers permanently hors de combat and usually in the Vietnam War corresponding figures aren't available for the PAVN/VC and so its unbalanced to include them. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand and am inclined to agree. But in this case you do give the number of VC wounded, but not those of the US; although I assume that they are known and some are mentioned in the text.

Well it just says that the one surviving VC captured was wounded. I'll delete that detail Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox: For US strength you state 5; for their losses you state 5 killed; under result you state US military victory. It doesn't quite add up.
  • There were 5 U.S. troops initially defending the Embassy, 2 of those were killed along with another 3 who arrived during the course of the battle. Obviously more U.S. forces arrived as the battle progressed. I'm not sure how this should be presented in the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like: '5 initially, rising to XXX'?

I have inserted Initially but its impossible to say how many Americans ultimately joined in the battle as MPs, Marine Security Guards and then the 101st Airborne troops joined in. Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Umm. I have got to the end and that's all I've got. A very nicely written article. It's late here. I hope to wrap it up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• You give the publisher location for Oberdorfer but not for the other References. Either is fine, but you should be consistent.
  • I've deleted the publisher location. Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Another fine, and, IMO, important, article. Happy to promote. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, much appreciated! regards Mztourist (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed