Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Nam Bac

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Battle of Nam Bac

edit
(
)
  • Reviewed: Red whip snake
  • Comment: Few armies in history have failed more ignominiously than the Royal Lao Army. This article is a "how not to" guide to running a military operation. The RLA picked this crucial battle, only to fail to protect its capitol. I wish I could link this article up to Jubilation T. Cornpone as their patron saint, but connection has escaped me.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Review: Article is new, long enough, well sourced, and interesting. The hook is cited (footnote 14 talkes about being "routed") I have issues with the tone, however, as it seems to be mostly written with the USA's war aims in mind (the "aftermath" section is about CIA finger-pointing not the fate of the Laotian army or people). The lede strays close be being non-POV, as itcludes a LOT of judgement and assesment of Laotian battle performance. You have to read much lower down to figure out these assesments are based on CIA sources. Can anything be added to the article to broaden the perspective away from the USA's angle, perhaps with a Lao or Vietnamese source is translation? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please do not confuse my little come-on above (which admittedly has attitude) with the article. I actually toned down some pretty scathing references in the sources. Doctrine says 2 - 1 odds in an infantry battle gives a fair chance of winning in an attack; 1 - 2 odds in the defensive means it should have been a massacre of the attackers. And this was the third consecutive battle where the Lao Army ran instead of fought.
  • Admittedly, I should mention the CIA in the lede, if I am to give a consistent summation.
  • And boy howdy, I would love to lay my eyeballs on the other side's sources for this or anything else concerning the Laotian Civil War. I've been looking, with no success to date. I can only go with my sources, and try to filter out the bias in an attempt at NPOV.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Either hook works as far as I am concerned.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Further review needed to recheck ALT1 hook, article NPOV (per above), and to check for close paraphrasing, which apparently wasn't done in the original review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: No close paraphrasing in the two sources I could access. I'm AGF for the others. While the view toward the RLA and CIA is highly negative, this stance is born out by the source material. The only statements I found a problem with were these: "Command and control communications within the defense were iffy." - Too informal in tone "However, given the span of time involved and Sullivan's command of the war in Laos, he obviously bore considerable responsibility for the Nam Bac disaster." - Use of a term such as "obviously" needs to be attributed to a source - it clearly is a non-neutral position, which is fine if attributed to a source. --¿3family6 contribs 04:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Try "Command and control communications within the defense functioned sporadically."
  • Ambassador William Sullivan had the unprecedented power to run his own war in Laos, as I stated in Background. The Battle of Nam Bac occurred on his watch. How could he not obviously bear responsibility?Georgejdorner (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And if someone will point out NPOV violations in the article, I would appreciate it. That way I can work on it. I do believe you are confusing the sarcasm in my nomination text with the article itself, though.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Georgejdorner:
    • "Command and control communications within the defense functioned sporadically" works fine.
  • Because claiming the he "obviously" bore responsibility needs to be attributed by a source. Unless there is a source making this claim, such an analysis violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research, one of the three core content policies. Wikipedia is not a place for original analysis, but a compendium of already existing scholarship.
  • The above problem is the only one that I see with NPOV. The article prose could use polishing and be rendered in a more encyclopedic tone, but that's not required for a DYK nom.--¿3family6 contribs 18:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not let the title "Ambassador" gull you. William Sullivan was in the unprecedented position of being in charge of military action in Laos. His nickname of "Field Marshal" was well earned. He could have withheld the supplies and money needed to fight at Nam Bac. It seems to me he is just as obviously responsible as Eisenhower was for D-Day. So do we really need to quote a source remarking upon it? Or did anyone find it necessary to find a source stating "obviously" concerning Ike and D-Day? Seems dubious to me.
  • At any rate, I have committed none of the dreaded Original Research. I have recast the events recounted in my sources. My wording, not my actions, are your concern.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It is the wording that is the problem. I assumed that a source supports the statement that he was responsible, but the statement is not attributed.--¿3family6 contribs 18:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The U.S. ambassador's permission was required for the Lao government to mount large-scale operations needing American transportation and supply." Quoted from page 223 of Warner. Looks obvious to me. Unless my referring to my source is considered Original Research.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless there is a source that explicitly states that he was obviously responsible, then yes, your analysis of the source is original research. The source you quoted clearly demonstrates that he had control of the operation. It does not, however, say that he was responsible for the failure of Nam Bac. There is other terminology in the article that needs to be attributed as well. For instance: "Another says he blamed his CIA minions." Does it actually say "minions?" These are not neutral terms - if they are used, they need to have been used in the source material, and attributed as such.--¿3family6 contribs 05:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Scroll up; I just gave you a source that clearly states Sullivan was responsible for Nam Bac. That means success or failure would ultimately be attributed to him. I don't know why you have a problem with the term "obviously" when the quote obviously fixes the blame on Sullivan.
  • "Minion" means "subordinate". The CIA agents in the Embassy were certainly under Sullivan's jurisdiction. What's non-NPOV about that?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Because a word like "obviously" suggests to the reader that this analysis is an inevitable conclusion. If a source states this, than that is fine, but the source should be named. But Wikipedia merely reports what sources state, not opine, correctly or no, on what the sources describe. If a source explicitly states that Sullivan was responsible, why not take the one minute to write "_____ considers Sullivan responsible for the outcome because ______"? If the source does not explicitly state that he bore responsibility for the outcome, then the statement saying such in the article should be removed. It's a simple fix, either way, that takes almost no time.
  • Because "minion" has negative connotations attached to it, see Wiktionary and Webster's entries. "Subordinate" is a much more neutral term.--¿3family6 contribs 22:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My paper copy of Webster has kinder definitions of "minion"; nevertheless, I swapped in "subordinates".
  • And since you claim I can't use "obviously" in an obvious case, I have rewritten that paragraph with obvious facts pointed out, but eliminated the dreaded "o" word. The rewrite is an exact parallel of the source in Warner.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That passage looks much better, and, in my opinion at least, resolves the issues of neutrality. Approved.--¿3family6 contribs 03:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Battle_of_Nam_Bac&oldid=944093211"