Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Momentum


 * 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 PFHLai (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Operation Momentum

 * ... that when James William Lair founded Operation Momentum, he began the Laotian Civil War?
 * ALT1:... that Operation Pincushion used the Auto Defense Choc program pioneered by Operation Momentum?
 * ALT2:... that Operation Momentum first guerrillas killed 15 Pathet Lao the day after graduation?
 * ALT3 :... that Operation Momentum three day training program raised a secret guerrilla army of 9,000 in just over six months?
 * ALT4: ... that Operation Momentum three day training program raised a secret guerrilla army of 9,000 in just over six months?
 * Reviewed: Mercedes-Benz CLR
 * Comment: Operation Momentum was such a success in hastily raising a fighting force from local populations that it not only founded Vang Pao's clandestine army that fought the Laotian Civil War, it was also widely copied by American Green Berets in the Vietnam War. Tragically, as Momentum supplied the most successful military force in Laos with soldiers from 1961-1972, it also basically destroyed the local Hmong people.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 17:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC).


 * *Symbol voting keep.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The original hook is debatable and ALT1 would have been more suitable if this was a joint nomination with Operation Pincushion. ALT3 has no inline citation. I have struck all these hooks. ALT2 is interesting and has inline citations for its facts. The article is neutral but is referenced to book sources not available on line so I was unable to assess whether there was any close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have pulled a slight rewrite to support ALT3, complete with cite, and reinstated it as ALT4.
 * Although I always "roll my own" when it comes to writing, a reviewer still has to check for copyright vios/paraphrase. (Gad, I am such a Boy Scout!)Georgejdorner (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review requested by nominator, for copyvio check and ALT4. Fuebaey (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This reviewer will check for copyright! Could we please re-write that section? It's not very large but it is a word-for-word copy which is very naughty - and if you don't take it out someone else will. Other than that, I like ALT2. I like the referencing. It was created in a timely manner. Let's not commit copyvios and then go ahead! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that I ALWAYS write my own articles, I am unfamiliar with the Earwig tool's results. If you could point out where I may have inadvertently duplicated someone else's writing, please do so and I will rewrite. However, be aware that I sometimes lift copies of portions of my own work and transplant them from article to article; sometimes I alter these, sometimes I don't. Please be sure that is not the case before accusing me of copyvios.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not violating AGF! In an article as in-depth as this, sometimes sourcing gets caught up in things. That says nothing of a person's intentions, simply the minutiae of balancing sourcing with writing. I did not mean to cause offense. I'll give you this though, the permalink is no longer putting out the same results. So...I suppose I both apologise and get confused? The opening paragraph is a word-for-word copy of something else. Whether that was copied from you, or it was a mix-up on referencing vs. content, I don't know - but the initial scan put it out there. Regardless, Symbol voting keep.svg. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No accusation of bad faith here. I was merely pointing out how the duplication came about without being a copyvio. I have written almost every article concerning the Laotian Civil War except that root article, and I frequently "borrow" from one of my articles to start/fill out another. If Earwig detects that, a quick check of Edit history on an article will show that I originally wrote the phrase/sentence/paragraph in question. That is probably further than you have ever gone to check something, and no wonder. And if I seem perturbed about copyvio, please pardon me. As a professional writer, I am sensitive about plagiarism.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg - I'm just putting this here again for emphasis. I would be too. I'm trying to get as in-depth with copyvio detection as is physically possible and this is a new tool. It had yet to lead me astray but we've all got to learn on new tools. Again, my apologies for the false positive. It really is a good article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No apology needed. You had excellent grounds for suspicion.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)