Talk:Battle of Huế

CE
Altered result in the infobox to conform with Template:Infobox military conflict. The bullet points should go too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You want to remove the bullets from an infobox on military conflict? EEng 10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NOTUSA violations
What kind of reason for violating MOS:NOTUSA is ? An article can never be modified, even if parts are against global community consensus, once it becomes a GA? — MarkH21talk 07:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What violates MOS:NOTUSA in the version that you changed? You changed US to American, the MOS says nothing about that. Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only things that I changed were for the following part of MOS:NOTUSA: If you’d prefer United States ___ over American ___ where an adjective is needed, then we can use that as well. — MarkH21talk 07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might not think that something like US and South Vietnamese victory (which isn’t even consistent with the U.S. 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 MOS:NOTUSA.Pinging GA reviewer . — MarkH21talk 07:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK if you really have nothing better to do. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting general question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.Your snide remark is unnecessary and not appreciated. — MarkH21talk 07:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly feel this is something very important, which I don't: WP:WIN. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you letting it go if you don’t care. The if you really have nothing better to do was a silly attempt at a put-down though. — MarkH21talk 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don’t think it’s important, then why are you adamantly against it? Seriously feels like some ownership issues. — MarkH21talk 08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:WIN here. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven’t even give a reason for reverting to your preferred version, besides unnecessary changes. 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 WP:OWNERSHIP behavior.The noticeboard post is a general question, not a post to direct users to this particular issue. — MarkH21talk 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 one variant throughout? There may be other examples." It would seem that I then missed an example in my final read through: errare humanum est. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. EEng 11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like your comment was meant for the previous section? This one isn’t about MOS compliance. — MarkH21talk 11:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stupid phone. EEng 11:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving from section below. — MarkH21talk 07:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, surely MOS compliance should be on the GA list? Most assessors take some regard to it already. MapReader (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Decluttering the lead paragraph
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 mess of blue links with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses:

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.

Since it’s a major edit, I’d propose the following lead paragraph: The dates could also be moved to Taking place in the South Vietnamese city of Huế between 31 January and 2 March 1968, [...] instead of the parenthetical.

let me know your thoughts. — MarkH21talk 08:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, its fine as it is. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have no more thoughts or discussion to offer at all? — MarkH21talk 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I’ll open WP:DR because there’s no arguing through your WP:OWNERSHIP and refusal to articulate anything. — MarkH21talk 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should you somehow have priority in editing here with your preferred version and other editors should go elsewhere? You don’t own the article, 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 disruptive.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. — MarkH21talk 08:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All this time you're spending arguing over what? Is this really important? Is this really improving the encyclopedia? Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on the application of MOS:NOTUSA
Should the MOS:NOTUSA clause: be applied to the article? In other words, should instances of U.S. and US be replaced with United States or American where another country's full name (e.g. South Vietnam or South Vietnamese) is mentioned in the same sentence?

Please respond with Yes or No, with justifications. Thanks. 07:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * No further changes required, the page as it stands now is fully MOS:NOTUSA 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.Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes: The use of U.S. in the same sentence as other country names is informal, and there's no real reason against implementing such changes. The grammatical mismatch when U.S. is used as a noun adjunct while the other country names are in full adjectival form is slightly awkward too, e.g. the 's US and South Vietnamese victory instead of American and South Vietnamese victory.There are still several instances of U.S. in the same sentence as mentions of other countries. For instance, the article says: • U.S. forces had been committed to combat operations on Vietnamese soil

• the South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in the city were unprepared

• 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

• according to South Vietnamese law, no U.S. flag was permitted to be flown without an accompanying South Vietnamese flag — MarkH21talk 08:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per MarkH21 and MOS:NOTUSA. --MrClog (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes if WP has a guideline such as MOS:NOTUSA, why would we not apply it? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes 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. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes since there is a policy on how to use it per <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> Idealigic (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes MOS:NOTUSA makes a lot of sense. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No 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 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. Fortunatestars (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! regards Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "American and South Vietnamese." Done. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as per others, too colloquial. VeritasVox (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section above and . — MarkH21talk 07:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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? — MarkH21talk 07:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The quoted part of MOS:NOTUSA doesn’t exclude adjectival forms of full country names. Also, why would US and South Vietnamese be even more acceptable than US and South Vietnam? In the latter, at least they’re both just nouns. In the former, it’s a mix of a noun adjunct (US) with a full adjectival form (South Vietnamese). — MarkH21talk 05:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 "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." Fortunatestars (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Fortunatestars 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. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say that using U.S. as a noun adjunct is grammatically wrong. I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be preferred if United States or American are available.Also, MOS:NOTUSA says especially in that cases. That’s not an exclusion of other cases. — MarkH21talk 07:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on wording the first paragraph of the lead
Which of the following versions of the first lead paragraph should be implemented?

Please indicate your preferred option by number. Suggested modifications are also welcome. Thanks. 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Survey

 * Option 6 >> Option 4 >> Option 5 > Option 1: There's a combination of issues with the first option and important context that is added in the other three options:
 * Issues with Option 1: The first sentence paragraph doesn't really define much about the battle or give much context, while the second sentence of the lead is a confusing mess of blue links with a comma-separated list following two comma-separated subordinate clauses. There's also a mismatch in the second sentence between numerical numbers (11 battalions vs. four battalions).
 * 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, during the Tet Offensive was [...] is slightly awkward. I agree though, that the totaling 18 battalions from the first four options is unnecessary.
 * 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 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.
 * Option 6: Establishes more context surrounding the significance of the event per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 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 implemented.
 * — MarkH21talk 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC); fixed wrong word & ranked Option 4, 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC); ranked Option 5 & 6 09:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 5 then Option 1. 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 sentence paragraph 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 the 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 sentence of the lead is a confusing mess of blue links." 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 Tet Offensive 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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mztourist (talk • contribs) 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 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". Mztourist (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 6 - 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. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 6 - 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 Battle of Gettysburg doesn't list the number of regiments on each side. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 6 per NorthBySouthBaranof – Idealigic (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
An RfC is just an RfC. Deb (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This RfC stems from the discussion in the section above and . — MarkH21talk 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MarkH21 Why are you now adding a 4th option after I posted my comments? Deb is this acceptable behaviour when I am engaging in good faith in this RFC? Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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, something that happens in normal consensus-building discussion. The ultimate goal here is to find a common ground with the best possible encyclopedia wording that we can agree on. — MarkH21talk 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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. Deb (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 status quo and my original two draft versions. — MarkH21talk 08:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If MarkH21 is allowed to add more options then why isn't my uniterated Option being added? Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecating Options 2 & 3, since Mztourist and I both don't really think it's better than other options. — MarkH21talk 09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deb 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? Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, 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. Deb (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deb 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 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. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 here when prompted. — MarkH21talk 11:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, then a clear preference would emerge from the Options or a compromise agreed in the Discussion. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And what does that mean? MarkH21 can be frustrated but I can't? He can just keep reframing the RFC? Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Deb (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)" Deb (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. MrClog (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. And maybe you have to rewrite your vote a bit; consensus building takes time and effort. --MrClog (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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? Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment 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. Mztourist (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the criticismWhat do you mean the link to urban warfare is trivial? It’s something so basic that the readers should never be linked there?Also, if it’s incorrect, then what does the intense house-to-house fighting currently in the lead refer to? Or the “Recapture of southern Huế“ section describing: Similarly, the “Analysis“ section states:  and quotes  Was this battle not a significant example of urban warfare? — MarkH21talk 05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 doctrine from. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I’d be fine with removing the link & word urban, 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 two months with one month. — MarkH21talk 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the criticism about the heavy losses negatively affected American public perception of the war, we can remove the word heavy. Otherwise, the sentence (in reference to the “Impact on American public opinion” section) isn’t specific to Option 6 since it’s already in the third paragraph of the lead right now. — MarkH21talk 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 determine. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, then battle instead of heavy losses.

Post-RfC
you have to define all the links that you deleted in the lede. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 ? — MarkH21talk 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Material not mentioned in the source
The text, Ho Chi Minh, Phạm Văn Đồng, Võ Nguyên Giáp and Ngô Đình Diệm had all attended the lycée in the city, 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. Ltncanada (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)