Template:Did you know nominations/Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam

 * ... that over 1,000 Vietnam veterans replied when asked if they were spat upon, resulting in Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam?
 * ALT1: ... that over 1,000 Vietnam veterans wrote to Bob Greene saying they were spat upon, resulting in Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam?
 * ALT2: ... that after Bob Greene asked if Vietnam veterans were spat upon, over 1,000 replies were culled for Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam?
 * Reviewed: Although I did not commit a full review of another DYK, I did read several articles becalmed in the backlog and contributed review comments and suggestions. These articles were: Template:Did you know nominations/1 (2013 film); Template:Did you know nominations/Go Eun-bi; Template:Did you know nominations/Maricopa County Courthouse.
 * Comment: One of the great and continuing disagreements of the Vietnam War is whether or not returning soldiers were spat upon when they returned to the United States. Those who insist such incidents never happened are often vehement in branding such tales urban legends. Many veterans are outraged by this accusation, and insist on the truth of the tale. Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam is an important source of information supporting the latter POV; however, I wrote it (I hope) in the spirit of NPOV. This would be a great article for Veterans Day, and I am requesting that it go to the Special Occasion Holding Area for that date, November 11th.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Sorry, George, this is not the way QPQ works. Just like someone is going to review your nomination against the DYK criteria, you need to submit a complete QPQ review for every article you nominate. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of how the system works. In 2011, I had four DYKs. Since I returned after a long layoff, I heeded the admonition to go easy to avoid foul-ups. I did not expect to be chastised for my caution in reviewing. I did do my best to chip at the backlog by doing multiple partial reviews that amounted to an equivalent of at least a full QPQ review. However, according to your interpretation of rules, I can't even claim a completely reviewed QPQ if I have the temerity to suggest an ALT hook during review because I have to have another editor sign off on the ALT. Nothing like a little negative incentive in the works. It's no wonder the DYK system is so incredibly backlogged if it's so difficult to get a QPQ to complete reviews. In short, I am not trying to game the system.
 * Moreover, since this submission I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/United States Senate election in Illinois, 1885.

I think the hook could use some improvement, perhaps ... that over 1,000 Vietnam veterans wrote to Bob Greene saying they were spat upon,, resulting in Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam? But also I'm not sure that the article as is meets the spirit of the citation requirements for DYK. 10/12 "sources" are the subject itself, and 11/12 were written by the same guy. I think additional secondary sources need to be included to meet the spirit of the requirement, but I will also defer to others if they disagree. Are there additional critical reviews that could be included? I sympathize with your request on timing tho, my recent DYK Zombie star missed the Halloween queue :(Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It does need some analysis from secondary sources. Are there any secondaries in the article at all? As the article currently stands, it could get speedily deleted, as there is ZERO indication of its notability. There MUST be analysis from source not affiliated with the subject. If that is resolved, I believe that this submission can move forward, as it meets the other DYK requirements (no copyvios, new enough, long enough, interesting hook). I'd suggest the alt that provided.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never before written a book review article, so this is a bit new to me. I can only suppose that in my quest for NPOV, I blunted the criticism from such folks as Jerry Lembcke too much, leading you to think I scanted Notability Requirement #1. However, this is a public matter is of concern to literally millions, per Requirement 3. It is also the product of a notable award-winning author, a man of national renown.
 * Some prediction here: This article will not only attract an ungodly number of hits for DYK, it will open a floodgate of debate on the subject. The controversy about spitting is such that mention of the subject in any gathering of Vietnam veterans will cause an eruption of opinion (says the voice of bitter experience).Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, added a bit to reflect Lembcke controversy. Lembcke, it seems, is still defending his position that his fellow veterans are liars; I believe he has some website(s) out there pretty much saying such.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As clarification "critical review" does not necessarily mean "criticism". 3rd party praise is acceptable as well. Regarding some of the other points you made, Greene may be famous/important, but WP:NOTINHERITED - I absolutely agree that the historical events are important, but is this particular recounting? I think the answer is probably yes, but we need the proof to say so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazon lists two editorial reviews that would be a good place to start I also found    and a number of other books citing this book. Put together I think that takes care of WP:GNG without issue, but those sources need to be incorporated into the article, and perhaps some of the content that is cited only to the book itself reduced. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Greene's fame only as a contributing factor to the mentioned notability, as I realize the fact he is the author is insufficient in itself. However, an issue that can move so many people to so much controversy has to be notable under Rule 3.
 * Many thanks for the links, Gaijin. I returned from finding the Amazon reviews, but nothing else. I have put the links to use, though the resulting cites may need more work...but right now, after six hours in this chair, I am bushed. And I need to go vote. I will return to work on this ASAP.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that the lead of the article reads like an essay. A better example of how to start the article can be seen at The Spitting Image. The bulk of the lead in this article really belongs in a Background section, in which case it needs to be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewrite available.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you. The lead reads much better. I went ahead and added 4 secondary sources to corroborate the information in the artice. It now reads like a very good book review with corrobating sources. As for the DYK review, it is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, and no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. QPQ done. However, the hook and alt hook are incorrect. Not all of the 1,000 letters were from veterans; as seen in the Kulik source, they were also from family members and friends of the veterans. (Meanwhile, this article says nothing about who wrote the letters.) Would you like to suggest a different hook that's cited in the article? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2 supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article itself looks good, but it might not be a bad idea to mention that the idea has been controversial, as I took a class with Christian Appy while in college and his book states that there were no accounts from the time of people being spit on, with the stories only appearing later. Of course, I can also look this up if you want (I have his book with me most of the time), so let me know if you want page numbers and whatnot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please add that information from the book. This article needs to be balanced. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Appy, but from the info supplied here his view seems to duplicate that of Lembcke. Note that the info is not contained in Appy's WP article, nor is it in any reference I have. Moreover, I would like to know how Professor Appy explained away the stories in Homecoming. Does he also disbelieve the veterans? Or does he have a different slant on spitting than Lembcke? If not, it's more of the same.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so sure. This is not Spitting on Vietnam veterans where balance would be required. This is an article about a specific book. Unless the Appy book specifically discusses this book, its relevance to this article is minimal. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Appy's statement that there were no accounts from the time of people being spit on, with the stories only appearing later, would be appropriate for the Critical Reception section. The page creator noted in the lead that the book was criticized, so the article needs to provide some of that. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see above comment.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Appy? I know that name! I'm a UMass man, though I never had Appy for a class. I agree that his statement should be mentioned, even if it doesn't directly address this book.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added info concerning Lembcke's denials, as that book is to hand. I'm a little nervous about biasing article and violating NPOV, though interested in highlighting controversy.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of if the other book is or is not a good idea to include, its not an issue for DYK. I'm tempted to call it good. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is ready to go, but the ALT2 hook is incorrect. Only 284 letters were printed in the book, not 1,000. How about:
 * ALT3: ... that in his 1989 book Homecoming, Bob Greene reprinted scores of letters from Vietnam veterans who said they were spat upon when they returned from the war zone? Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good for ALT3. Will need to rush and get someone to push this inthe the queue/prep out of turn tho to make the special event. 17:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)