Talk:May Offensive

WaPo refspamming

Yes Wa Po is fine, User:Mztourist. I used the edit note I did, for a reason. The content in that paragraph was already well-sourced by the ref at the end. I won't re-revert, but if you want to support this WP:REFSPAM campaign for columns at washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis, that is your deal.Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I was neutral about the ref being added, thinking it was a valid ref to a related and somewhat interesting story, so see no need to delete it. Have no comments on REFSPAM. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Apparent consensus for a move to "May Offensive" without a parenthetical. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

---

May offensive → May Offensive – Obvious, as in Tet Offensive and every other offensive/battle/campaign/etc. 5.173.41.12 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• No great opinion on the O. But at this remove since 1968 I'm wondering if May offensive (Vietnam War) might not be more helpful. Who under 70 is going to know that this is Vietnam War article? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's a fair point. Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Additional qualifier also suggested. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment use "Vietnam War", and add a set index for campaigning in May at the current location -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment agree that it needs a disambiguator, as "May offensive" is a very generic name (I am under 70 :) Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to May Offensive. But why would we use a disambiguator when there's no other "May Offensives" with which this could be confused? As far as I understand, parentheticals in the page title are only for the purpose of disambiguation. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support for "offensive" → "Offensive" after looking at sources and other Vietnam War offensives on Wikipedia – they're very mixed with a slight lean toward capitalized. Oppose adding a disambiguator. Even if there was another May Offensive with a Wikipedia article, this would almost surely be primary and be at the base name with a hat note (see Battle of Verdun for what WP tends to do in that case and October Revolution for an example with a month in the title). To decide to add "(Vietnam War)" would be a much larger discussion than a single MR, in my opinion. Skynxnex (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support May Offensive per nom and oppose a parenthetical per User:Arbitrarily0. —  AjaxSmack  23:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The engagement of US 5th Marine Division in May Offensive

The 26th Marine Regiment appears in both Operation Allen Brook and Operation Mameluke Thrust InfoBox. And the regiment own article clearly informs it was activated at Camp Pendleton initiating the formation of the 5th Marine Division as well as engaged in two above operations. If @Mztourist doesn't accept the engagement of the 5th Marine Division in May Offensive then we should change 3 related articles accordingly. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The 26th Marine Regiment were assigned first to the 3rd Marine Division and then to the 1st Marine Division. Read the 5th Marine Division page which clearly states "the 5th Division was never in command of the 26th Marine Regiment (26th Marines) in the war." Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I see. So there is no engagement of US 5th Marine Division in May Offensive.

In fact, I added US 5th Marine Division to May Offensive because it appears in InfoxBox of both Operation Allen Brook and Operation Mameluke Thrust beside US 1st Marine Division.

It's quite contradict. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before. The changes were made by User:Fustos a blocked sockpuppet. I have fixed both the Operation Allen Brook and Operation Mameluke Thrust Infoboxes. Mztourist (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright. It's better now. But VC losses in these two operations are still inconsistent.

We are using 919 killed for Operation Allen Brook, taken from Shulimson page 343.

Meanwhile, Operation Mameluke Thrust ends at Shulimson page 349 with no mention of VC losses, the current 2,728 killed taken from Shulimson page 726, that says 2,728 casualties without captured number.

For consistency, I recommend using the final numbers from Shulimson page 726 (Appendix B) for VC casualties, neither killed nor captured. Leemyongpak (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Page 423 of Shulimson states 2,730 enemy killed, 47 prisoners, and 8 ralliers. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Good found, ±2 is acceptable for that big number, VC losses in Operation Mameluke Thrust is OK now.

We still need another citation for VC losses in Operation Allen Brook, ±100 is somehow unacceptable. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)