Talk:Operation Barrel Roll

Page move?
I was going to move this page, but I want to see if I was right in my suspicions. The word "Barrel" in this article title is spelled incorrectly (there's an extra l). All sources I've seen on this topic say it's spelled "barrel". Would it be improper to move this article to its correct spelling?  . V .  [Talk 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. You are correct in your spelling. Just itchy on the index fingers, I guess, although the spelling would have been corrected as the article moves toward completion. What do you think about how its shaping up? RM Gillespie 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. :) I think this article is shaping up pretty well! It looks very nicely constructed.  . V .  [Talk 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Better photos
There are any number of better photos of T-28s in Laos than the black-on-black obscurity presently in the article. Cannot someone with skills superior to mine dub one in?

Also, a photo of a forward air control plane would be great, whether an O-1, O-2, or OV-10. And a photo of fighter-bombers, preferably in action against the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New primary source
There's a note in the conclusion that "The War in Northern Laos" would never see the light of day. Here's a link that could use digesting. I intend to read up on it myself, but I'm not much of a wiki coder.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB248/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB248/war_in_northern_laos.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.130 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that as well, and the problem is that the quote is from a 1988 book (The Ravens, by Christopher Robbins), and The War in Northern Laos was only published in 1993 according to the National Security Archive website.
 * I have therefore deleted the assertion and source from the article.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor source and speculation for the last part of the conclusion
The source [26] is a glimpse of a dated article from wayback machine. It also doesn't even address what is written in the last part of the conclusion. The text also make a lot of assumption without any backing.

A more reliable source should be added and the text rewritten 85.170.116.84 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)