Template:Did you know nominations/1967 Opium War


 * 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 Allen3 talk 19:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1967 Opium War

 * ... that when Kuomintang troops and Burmese smugglers fought one another in the 1967 Opium War, both sides got bombed?
 * ALT1:... that when Kuomintang troops and Khun Sa's Burmese smugglers fought one another in the 1967 Opium War, both sides got bombed?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Meenakshipuram conversion
 * Replacement QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Jolly Darkie Target Game
 * Comment: The idea of a mule train of opium seems quaintly oldfangled. The idea of bombing smugglers and mules seems strange. Yet that is exactly what happened in this battle over 16 tons of illicit opium. While rival armies of drug smugglers fought over the opoid cargo, an ally of the United States swooped in, confiscated the opium, refined it to heroin, and sold it to U.S. troops in Vietnam, among others. This bizarre little battle in the back of nowhere forever changed the worldwide illegal drug trade.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 04:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment: The reviewed article already linked to Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Off Balance. --Gfosankar (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Erk! Hate it when I do that. New QPQ supplied above.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[ALT2:] ... that after the communists took power in China, the Kuomintang Third and Fifth Armies became drug smugglers in Burma until their defeat in the 1967 Opium War? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Nice article, but I don't find the hook very interesting. Getting bombed was the fate of combatants in many 20th century wars. I would suggest something along the lines of:


 * Might I note that the above proposed new hook is factually incorrect?
 * The hook I suggested trades off the ambiguity of the word "bombed"; the idea was that it can mean "intoxicated" as well as "attacked". Maybe that's too subtle, though.
 * Then, too, I wanted to play off the incongruity of attacking a mule train with aircraft. Georgejdorner (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that the pun was entirely lost on me (I'm not a native speaker of English). As for the incongruity, that doesn't really come across because the mules aren't in the hook. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The pun is not real obvious, even to a native speaker of English. And I must confess I did drop one hook that mentioned the mules.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Don't call them the Kuomintang. I know it's where our article is but "Chinese Nationalists" or the "KMT" are both much better known. ALT3: ... that both Burmese mules and Chinese Nationalists got bombed by Laos during the 1967 Opium War? ALT4: ... that Burmese mules and Chinese Nationalists got bombed during the 1967 Opium War? Comment: I struck it for you, but what was "factually incorrect" about ALT2? That they stopped? Because the article as it stands mostly backs up Q's point. — Llywelyn II   05:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC) ALT5: ... that, after the Communists took power in China, the Nationalist 3rd and 5th Armies took over the Burmese drug trade until their defeat in the 1967 Opium War? Comment: .shrug. I can't help it if Webster's slang is so bad they can't tell the difference between THC-"narcotic drug" and opiod-narcotic drug, but that's aside the point of it mostly not working because of the pun being swallowed by the war angle. The mules are cute, though. — Llywelyn II   01:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it helps, the pun is obvious to Americans but then confusing. It does mean "intoxicated" but either from alcohol or marijuana, not opium. In any case, the link to a war article swallows up most of the punniness. It's not really worth keeping unless the mules come back in. Of course, that is a pun too. See: drug mule.
 * The detail that makes ALT2 incorrect is that the KMT became drug smugglers in Burma, not in Laos.
 * Please allow a bit of time for reconsideration here, while I deal with the issue of the hook. Also, please note that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "bombed" as "...having the central nervous system so affected by alcoholic liquor, a narcotic drug, etc., as to have lost control..."Georgejdorner (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah. Just so. Unstruck and emended. Also:
 * Time to sort out the hooks.
 * The original and ALT1 are true and properly cited.
 * ALT2 is still factually incorrect; the KMT did not quit drug smuggling after their defeat. Also, there is no confirming cite at the end of a sentence for the hook.
 * ALT3 and ALT4 are correct, and properly cited.
 * ALT5 is incorrect for the same reasons as ALT2.
 * For ALT6, I propose: ... that during the 1967 Opium War, both traffickers and their mules got indiscriminately bombed? Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not saying we have to go with ALT5, but you're misreading it if you think it's incorrect. The fact that the "war" ended their control of the Burmese trade is not only correct but cited. Emended ALT6.
 * Um, a more careful re-reading of ALT5 convinces me you are indeed correct.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That said, I was just commenting. Is Qwertyus going to come back and finish an actual review? or do you need someone new to come in? —  Llywelyn II   01:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is indeed a good question. I think I shall ping him/her.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry to keep you waiting. Please get someone else to do a review, I won't be able to do so in time. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hooks are set; struck ALT2 hook noted as incorrect (ALT5 appears okay after all). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Article was nominated on the same day as creation, and definitely is long enough. The hooks are neutral and interesting. I prefer ALT 5 or ALT 6. ALT 5 right now does not have a direct citation, so I don't know technically if I can approve that one. I'm assuming good faith on copyvios and close paraphrasing, since the source is offline.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)