Template:Did you know nominations/Phou Khao Kham


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator; closing

Phou Khao Kham

 * ... that Phao Khao Khouai became Phou Khao Kham?
 * ALT1: ... that during Phou Khao Kham, troops were refitted regrouped in Gold Mountain?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilda E. Nardone

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 03:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg No major issues that would block this from being a valid DYK. The hook actually feels like something that would make a good April Fool's Day DYK. ViperSnake151   Talk  06:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Earwig copyvio score = 2%.
 * If the DYK volunteers tag this nom for April Fool, I would not object.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't recommend the current hook for April Fool. In its current state, I do not find it overly interesting, but maybe that's just my opinion. The hook could do with a cleanup. For example, it links to a redirect of the article in bold, so maybe delink it and place it in italics to stress the name. Also, the tick should really be AGF, because there is not a single external link in the article and I'm struggling to find anything noting its existence through Google. These are just my two cents and I hope they are of help.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'd like to go a step further than Jolly Janner did, and say this hook is downright misleading, by letting people click on a redirect which leads them back to the same article. I'm going to suggest the nominator comes up with something new. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept Amberrock's point. Please allow me a couple of days to come up with a new hook.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * New hook supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's still too confusing. Here's ALT2:
 * ALT2 ... that during the 1971 Laotian military Secret War offensive Phou Khao Kham, troops were refitted in Gold Mountain?
 * Please review. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Though I think ALT1 will draw better because it is a bit mysterious.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer is requested to evaluate ALT1 and ALT2. —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 and ALT2 are both consistent with the article text. None of the sources are online, and a search on "Phou Khao Kham" shows only WP clones and two of the (offline) books, but I am willing to assume good faith given the author's edit history. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg My understanding of reading the article is that Gold Mountain is a codename. The article doesn't go on to explain the origins of this name, so I'm not sure one can assume that this is a real placename. However, my understanding of reading the hook is that Gold Mountain is a mountain and that troops were refitted inside of it (like a mine shaft or tunnel etc). There's some obvious ambiguity between the article and hook that needs to be resolved. Either a new hook or explanatory text behind "Gold Mountain".  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have revisited the article. Where I once had an ambiguous "it", I substituted "the operation". I make no mention of a mine or tunnel in the article. On checking the source, I find, "Regrouping for three days, the task force was given a new operational name&mdash;Phou Khao Kham (Golden Mountain)..." It was customary to take advantage of the air bridge during this war to resupply units in the field. However, because that is not specifically stated by the quote above, I have slightly altered the hook.
 * Now, as to ambiguity in the ALT1 hook. Would you not be curious about whether those troops actually did enter a tunnel? And then, click to find out? According to the Reviewer's guide, a hook can be, "A tease, giving only part of the relevant information." As I have done.
 * And there is no use having an article on the Laotian Civil War if you are not going to use it, so I linked it into ALT2. And again, the tease to draw readers into WP.
 * I realize this review has probably turned problematic and frustrating for you. I do appreciate your patience in this matter.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand why you have used a "tease", but it shouldn't be used to give misinformation (unless there is humour, in which case April Fools applies). It leads people on to believe they were stations in a mountain, yes. But when you read the article, it leaves (me at least) even more confused.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you will point out the false information in the hook, I will remove it. However, if there is no false information there, then I believe it becomes apparent that your reaction is an individual misunderstanding.
 * Now, to clear up some other loose ends. Top Secret information on military operations is bound to be difficult to find on the internet. However, the main source for this article can be viewed at.
 * I do not care whether this runs as April Foolishness, or not.
 * I have now supplied the means for the reviewers to rewrite the hook and/or the article for themselves. I have also exhausted my store of explanations. From here on out, the reviewer(s) can pass the nom, fail it, rewrite whatever they wish. I am through with this nomination (except for removal of any possible misinfo in the hook). I could be spending my time productively elsewhere.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 and ALT2 are both consistent with the article text. The troops were regrouped in a place the military called Phou Khao Kham (Gold Mountain). There is no implication that they were regrouped inside a mountain and no need to spell out that this was not Gold Mountain, California. The article and hook are fine. Let's move on. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the current article's text that covers the hook: "The stalled offensive force was removed from the ridge where it had encamped, and leapfrogged over the foe to be landed at a vacant Auto Defense Choc site, Xieng Dat. They were refurbished for three days in preparation of a heliborne assault on Muang Soui; in the process, the operation was renamed Phou Khao Kham (meaning Gold Mountain)." It sounds like they were refitted in Xieng Dat. Please be aware that non-military experts do not know that operations are named after locations.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What hook do you propose? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't propose using any of the hooks that have been proposed so far. I also cannot find anything interesting in the article's prose to use either. There could perhaps be something in there, but I'm very unfamiliar with military history, and don't have access to the sources. At this point the best thing to do may be to see if anyone comes up with any hooks and if nothing comes up for a while to just abandon it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not like any of the suggested hooks, but have no ideas of your own. You have no interest in military history. The article is just too boring for DYK? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are your words, not mine. The article is fine, but we need an accurate, interesting hook to feature it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about ALT3 below? Are you willing to approve it? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT3 ... that the United States helped the Royalists against the Communists in the Gold Mountain offensive?


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 approved. Article new enough, long enough, and adequately cited. Hook short enough, interesting enough, and also cited. Article appears to be neutral and free of copyright violations and plagiarism. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg For ALT3 and struck the rest of the hooks. Although technically not within rules as it doesn't use inline citations at the end of the sentence, I'm willing to waiver it since most of this article is cited to one source, so should be pretty transparent for fact checking. I would recommend avoiding the piped links, since it's not obvious that this is in Laos.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT3 is indeed accurate, as the U.S. aided the Royalists for basically every operation of the entirety of the Laotian Civil War. In fact, this hook could be further simplified to "...that fill in the blank was an operation of the Laotian Civil War?" This boring generic hook could be saved and slapped onto EVERY article I write on the war. It will be equally true for all, equally bland for all, and labels the article satisfactorily. I predict it would also draw few readers.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg If overturning an approved hook and running a generic hook in contravention of DYK rules is the best the reviewers can come up with, it is time to kill the nomination. I would be embarrassed to have this present nomination run as my work. Please withdraw this nomination.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point that you raise. It doesn't come across as interesting to me, but I was open to the idea of featuring it since it's rather subjective. Also see Copyrights. All of the content that you write on Wikipedia is freely licensed and be used for any purpose (with attribution). This also means that we can feature any article that you have contributed to with or without your opinion.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)