Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December 1964 South Vietnamese coup/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:35, 28 October 2010.

December 1964 South Vietnamese coup

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This was one of half a dozen changes/rearrangements of government in South Vietnam in 1964. At the urging of the US, an appointed civilian pseudolegislature was appointed to make things look civilian-like. The junta wanted to introduce a retirement age to remove some old rival generals, but the High National Council (mockingly the "High National Museum" as they were mostly old men) refused. So the young generals shut down the HNC. This led to a lot of angry shouting by the US Ambassador and Gen Maxwell Taylor, and then both Taylor and General Nguyen Khanh ended up shouting at each other to leave the country, threatening to end relations etc and a media circus started. A few days later the Vietcong bombed a US officer dormitory. The US wanted to retaliate but then thought maybe Khanh bombed them, so they got confused....  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—The first sentence reads like the junta itself was dissolved. Reading the rest now. Ucucha 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this becuase of the HNC sounding like it might be the name of the junta?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is "the ... junta ... dissolved and arrested some members of the HNC", which I read as "the junta dissolved; and it arrested some members of the HNC". I've tried a rewording of the sentence that is clearer to me. Ucucha 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Image comment Copyright wise they all look okey. I'm assuming that File:Thi and thieu.jpg is a scan by yellowmonkey and doesn't have an online source.©Geni 02:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a drag cut/paste from the PDF of the book  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: in the References section, the title of the Hammond source should be capitalised per WP:MOS, i.e. Public Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1962–1968. Additionally, does the work have an ISBN, or an OCLC number? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Yes it did have an ISBN, but my library's catalogue entry didn't. Added now  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Going through it now, but what are the chances of getting a stub for High National Council? Would fill out three red links that are visible from the top of the page. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done yes, and for Chung Tan Cang too as he is involved in a series of these aticles  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Another very informative, interesting article. Looks good, just a few minor points.
 * The lead is a little long but summarises the article well, so I'm not too sure it could be trimmed.
 * I know... these factional manoevres can be complicated  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "This was speculated to be due to the fact that many HNC members were old": a little clunky?
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have missed it, but was an "official" reason given for the dissolution at the time? And did they ever really justify it except through vague statements about communists and colonialists?
 * They called a press conference, which is noted, but the sources don't bother to say what was actually said except that it was in the best interests etc.... I'm guessing if there was a reason given that the sources didn't bother to say, they probably accused them of being reds, which is the stock tactic in SV  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "For him, the HNC was a necessary step in a progression to an elected civilian legislature, which he regarded as critical for national and military morale, although there have been many instances of fierce fighting in Vietnamese history despite the complete absence of democracy throughout the nation's history." Three points: it's a long sentence; should it be "there had been"; and this reads like an opinion. Presumably it is someone's opinion, could this be noted in the text so it doesn't look like OR?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "to give the impression the country did not Washington's aid" Typo?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Order of the Day" What is this?
 * Some kind of regular motivational radio speech he gives to the army  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a point of curiosity: Taylor does not come out of this particularly well from his "interviews" with the generals: how similar were his accounts of it to the generals'?
 * The sources don't say who leaked the quotes to them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were based on Taylor, as Kahin, Karnow and Langguth were all in SV at the time and that's what the modern historians quote for the transcript, and as Taylor invited everyone for a private chat  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And how did Taylor's actions go down in the US? Was it felt he had overstepped his role? Or was he acting with official approval throughout?
 * Well the State department defended him without saying what the problem was, this is in the article. The US media also blamed Khanh  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What was the opinion of the general public in Vietnam? Or was this unimportant in the grand scheme of things? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The journos would end up in the cooler with the HNC if they complained....and there were no public protests reported, so I'm not sure anything useful could be said in any case, secondly when the communists won, they locked everything published under SV in a cupboard, so we couldn't find out anyway, as the only people who can get access are visiting historians from a university etc...  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with comment - Looks great! A very informative and interesting read, as usual. I made some tweaks along the way, but I do have one comment: You have both British (behaviour, etc) and American (criticize, etc) English in here. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed that one. Many thanks, I'm not always too aware of all the variants except the more obvious ones  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.