Template:Did you know nominations/Committee for the Defence of National Interests


 * 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Committee for the Defence of National Interests

 * ... that the rightward turn in Royal Lao Government policies caused by the Committee for the Defence of National Interests alienated the Pathet Lao?
 * ALT1:... that in 1959 the Committee for the Defence of National Interests gave their figurehead Prime Minister a year's plenary powers?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Elizabetha Jacson

Created/expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough and long enough; within 1 day of nomination prose was expanded at least 5x. The article is sourced to book sources, article is occasionally not neutral (see below), and I am assuming good faith that it is free of copyright problems as all sources are books located offline (I believe copyright violations are unlikely). There are some other issues with the article (see below). The hook has been verified; it is formatted correctly, is short enough, and is neutral; its content was located in the article where it is cited with an inline citation. It is not very interesting but that is only because of the subject of the article. The QPQ has been done.
 * All that is needed is to clean up some of the following prose written in an occasionally preposterous unencyclopedic style: "which were obviously rigged", "flared up", "one of them" (suggest saying "a member" instead), "the most disgraceful trafficking", "traded about like currency", "In any case", "they pretty much ran the government", "there seemed little recognition", "plumped", "keep an eye on the situation", "for their own good", "easily perceived", "flared up again". Use normal (not bold) font for the initial letters C, D, N, and I. Remove all ellipses before "certain families", after "themselves", and before "ministerial" (they are not being used correctly). Suggest reading Manual of Style/Words to watch and Writing better articles. Consider adding subsections to History section. Consider adding an appropriate Infobox. Consider locating an appropriate image (understand this may not be possible). As soon as these issues are resolved please let me know by pinging me here. Prhartcom (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, let me work down the above list item by item:
 * "obviously rigged": Source material reports a communist candidate with five voting family members receiving 4 votes. His opponent received 18,189. Another communist lost by 6,508 to 13 in a pro-communist area. What else is this than a rigged election?
 * Of course it is, but we must write in a neutral voice, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy. Neutral writing is something we as writers of the encyclopedic have to fully embrace; it is a core requirement. Our writing cannot side with either the oppressors or the oppressed. Find a way to state this particular fact objectively and neutrally. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed "flared up" to "fighting began".
 * "a member" is indeed an improvement. Done.
 * "the most disgraceful trafficking" is a quote and cannot be rewritten. Likewise, "traded about like currency".
 * I apologise; these are indeed quotes; I withdraw this particular note. Please remove the ellipsis as requested as they are not being used correctly (believe me, it will work well without them).
 * Deleted the transitional phrase "in any case".
 * Changed "pretty much ran" to "took over", although I believe the latter phrase may be a slight exaggeration.
 * Thank-you for changes like this, as "they pretty much ran the government" is written in an informal conversational tone, such as how we might speak to our close friends on the telephone, and is very clearly not the voice of an encyclopedia. I believe you are right about "took over" as it also may not be encyclopedic; please check your source for ideas on the correct verbiage; perhaps try "assumed control".
 * I fail to see a problem with "There seemed to be little recognition".
 * Three problems: Because people refer to an encyclopedia for definite information, not what a situation "seems" to be. Because some writers say a good school of thought is to avoid using the word "there". And because it is not clear who exactly is having the "recognition". Try restructuring the sentence focusing on "disparity in forces", the factual statement, and make a definite statement (only if it is backed up with your source), such as: "The disparity in forces was clear:". Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "plumped for" is a bit obscure; subbed "were in favor of".
 * Replaced "keep an eye on" with "monitor".
 * "the situation" is too vague and needs to also be rewritten. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "for their own good": The source says, "Phoumi proposed to follow electoral success with a "directed democracy," one that preserved a constitutional, parliamentary system while compensating for the limitations of "masses too ignorant for normal democracy."" Perhaps change "good" to "welfare"?
 * We as writers of the encyclopedia have no right to assert that the dictator did something "for their own good" or "for their own welfare", even if the sources get away with boldly saying so. It must be reworded to be completely neutral; I suggest cutting the phrase completely as it works without it. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reinforced "easily perceived" with election stats, per first item in this list.
 * We cannot say that "they were easily perceived"; it is an unsupported attribution, known around here as Weasel words; please read that Wikipedia advice very carefully and embrace it fully. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since hostilities broke out again, what's wrong with "flared up"?
 * It is casual conversation language, not the language of an encyclopedia.
 * The letters I bolded to aid readers to understand the abbreviation "CDNI" may be unconventional, but I don't believe they violate any WP standard. Remember "Be bold"?
 * I assume you are joking. We do not bold the fonts of initial letters in this way. It will be fine with normal font. Just state the name of the organization, each word with an upper-case letter, then follow the organization name with the abbreviation in parenthesis. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the MOS for ellipses. Put spaces in ellipses, as is usual in quotations.
 * Yes, we use them in such cases, but here it is understood that you are obviously not including the entire speech given to the original listeners, we know these are just snippets, and that the snippets themselves are presented in their entirety. The only time we need the ellipsis is when a single piece of quoted text has something missing in the middle, as opposed to either side, e.g.: "The speakers then insisted "that the people remain calm ... collected." Notice we do not include them on the outside edges of the quote. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered breaking History into subsections, but found no natural dividing point in the text.
 * I would love to add an info box if I knew where to find one. (This is my first&mdash;and probably last&mdash;article on a political party.) Same goes for the image. And if you can come up with a jazzier hook, I would be very grateful.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox, subheadings, and images would give it a more professional look (these are about the only three visual tools we have). It is fine if you do not have the image and also the subheadings, but the infobox would really help. I will look around for one for you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please fix the last few things I mentioned. Also: By any chance, is it possible the hook can be made just a little more interesting? Give it a try. Thank-you for your efforts and good luck with your improvements; ping me when you are ready for me to take another look at this. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: In the search box type "WP:List of infoboxes", then on that page search for "Politics and government", where there are four subsections, each with multiple infoboxes; I'm sure you will locate the appropriate one. To learn how to use it, in the search box type "Template:Infoxbox [name]", substituting the name of the Infobox, i.e. "Template:Infobox political party" and this will bring up the documentation. Good luck. Thanks again for preparing this article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider this nomination withdrawn.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This review has gotten to the point where I have to point out that where the source uses "blatantly", I have supplied "obviously", etc., etc. The effort to rewrite this article will not pay off in considerable DYK readership, so why bother?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I am sorry to say the nominator has withdrawn the nomination rather than addressing issues of neutrality (i.e. "elections, which were obviously rigged", "for their own good", and "easily perceived as fraudulent"). Prhartcom (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This being Wikipedia, the above editor is free to edit the article as he wishes if it displeases him.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Georgejdorner, it isn't me, it's policy: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Why not just fix those three remaining phrases and then it will be passed? Prhartcom (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)