Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBHISTORY/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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2017.

Operation PBHISTORY

 * Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA earlier this year. It's based on pretty much every scholarly and book source that discusses the subject, and I feel it's comprehensive. It went through a detailed GA review by earlier this year, and I've polished it since. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: per the FOP tag, should include more details about the artwork pictured, particularly its specific location
 * Hmm. I'm uncertain how specific I can be about this, because the location "covered an entire city block within two hundred meters of the National Palace". If we need the precise address, I can ask . But you reviewed this image already, here; has something changed since then?
 * Think you can just add that description to the image page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.


 * File:PatrickJHillings.jpg: don't see that tag at the source site, or am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I investigated this in more detail, and you're right. The image seems to originally come from the NYT, on whose website it is no longer available: I also find it unlikely that the NYT image would be PD, and unlikely that we could justify non-free use here. So I've removed the image: the article has a fair few images in any case.


 * I've responded to your concerns. I've a question for you, if I may: this image is clearly horizontally compressed, but I've no idea of how to fix that besides downloading it, stretching it, and uploading it. I'm uncertain if there's a better way, or if that method is acceptable: d'you have any advice? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might see if someone at the Graphics Lab could help. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they were very helpful. The issue has been fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from SchroCat

 * Why is the title part-capitalised? I don't see any rationale in the MoS that would justify it (although I may have missed it). - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an understandable question. Basically it's because that's what the source do: Holland, for instance, says "There is, to be sure, an oft-told anecdote derived from PBHISTORY, the cryptonym for the project dedicated to gathering and exploiting Guatemalan Communist documents." (Holland, 2004, p 300). More generally, it's the convention used by the vast majority of RS for all of the related CIA operations: Operation PBFORTUNE and Operation PBSUCCESS, for instance. I'm uncertain as to the origins of the convention. If there is a good reason to ignore this convention and move the article to Operation Pbhistory, I'd be willing to do so. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm right in saying that most military operations also use the same capitalisation format, but we drop it to sit in line with the MoS. (And looking at WP:FA, I don't see any other capitalised operations). or  (both being active in that project) will know better than I. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, Milhist is not my usual area of work; this is as close as I get: so I'm happy to follow the advice of folks more experienced in this area. Let me just throw in a few more options: "PB" is the CIA's geographical moniker for Guatemala. The "History" was operation specific. So I imagine a case could be made for "Operation History", and for "Operation PBHistory". Also going to ping, who reviewed PBFORTUNE at GAN: I'd like to hear your views. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Others may have a different view, but although military operation names are usually rendered in Title Case, given these operation names seems always to be in all upper case in sources, we should IAR, ie I reckon the whole operation name should be in upper case across these CIA articles (Operation PBFORTUNE etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , that seems to run counter to the existing articles in Featured articles (Operation Barras, Operation Bernhard, Operation Passage to Freedom and Operation Tungsten). When I worked on Operation Goldeneye, I noted that the sources capitalise the name, but we have it in title case. It seems a bit of a mismatch. (Just for the record, the other Operations FAs in Featured articles are Operation Brevity, Operation Camargue, Operation Charnwood, Operation Cobra, Operation Copperhead, Operation Crossroads, Operation Epsom, Operation Flavius, Operation Goodwood (naval), Operation Grandslam, Operation Hardboiled, Operation Infinite Reach, Operation Ironside, Operation Ke, Operation Kita, Operation Mascot, Operation Mincemeat, Operation Pamphlet, Operation Paravane, Operation Perch, Operation Teardrop, Operation Ten-Go, Operation Tractable, Operation Uranus and Operation Varsity). - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Either Pbhistory or PBHistory would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could get your opinion here too, as we seem to be evenly divided. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did see the original ping and was going to stop by but, perhaps because I didn't yet have the nom on my watchlist, it dropped through the cracks... In RL I'm used to operation names being upper case (see the RAAF's current ops page for instance) but we do seem to have broad consensus for title case on WP, thus given the slightly unusual situation with this one (initials evidently being part of the name) I think I'd have to go with "PBHistory"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . It looks like "PBHistory" has the most support. As I've temporarily handed in my mop, I'm unable to move the page: might I ask you to do the honors? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article has now been moved. Did you have any other suggestions you wish to mention? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can. I have promised myself to a couple of different things and time is a bit stretched, but if a window comes up, I'll be along. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 10 requires pp. not p., and ndash not hyphen
 * Fixed: also used the dash script on the whole page, there were a few others.


 * For consistency, the citations to "Holly" should be to "Holly & Patterson", as per the other multiple author source.
 * Also fixed.

Otherwise, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Following the move, all mentions of PBHISTORY should be changed to PBHistory, including in the heading above.
 * Done
 * "Kersten Committee" For clarity, this should be "Kersten Committee of the US House of Representatives"
 * I've expanded the link in the text, I'd rather not expand the section title, for aesthetic reasons.
 * "Guatemalan communists were being controlled by the Soviet government" What communists? You have not said above that there were any. (I see that you say below that the Party of Labour was communist, so if you specify above in the lead "communist Guatemalan Party of Labour" it would be clear what you are referring to.)
 * I've added that: it is indeed clearer.
 * There seems to be a contradiction between the comments of historians at the end of the lead, with Holland saying that the US wanted to hide the operation and Sewell that they wanted to publicize it.
 * Well it's a bit contorted because the policy was contorted: the US officially denied its own involvement, but still wished to portray the coup itself as a success against Soviet communism...
 * Your reply suggests that in "publicize its success", "its" refers to the coup, but in the text it appears to refer to the "ill-fated" Operation PBHistory. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Arévalo was staunchly anti-communist" "staunchly" is a POV word which implies approval. "strongly" would be better as neutral.
 * Agreed, and I've gone further and simply removed the term: it isn't needed.
 * "since the failed coup in 1949" You have not previously referred to this. maybe "since a failed coup in 1949"
 * Done
 * "ODACID" What does this stand for?
 * This is a CIA cryptonym for the US embassy: not sure of the best way to work this in, though, given that it's a quote. I've gone with [U.S. embassy] for now.
 * "a member of one of the ruling juntas had prevented the Comité" This is confusing. Why "juntas" plural? Also you say above that the Comité was not created until 20 July.
 * The tumult following the coup lasted for several months, until Castillo Armas was elected president in October; during this time five military juntas led the country. Castillo Armas led the last of those. This seems like too much detail though, and I'm not sure it addresses your issue.
 * The first issue could be addressed by changing "In the period of uncertain leadership" to something like "A succession of juntas took power in the period of confusion". On the second, you have said above the Armas established the Comite, and here describe it as existing before he took power. This is a contradiction. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "USIA" What does this stand for?
 * Added link
 * "served to perpetuate two existing CIA operations" "served to perpetuate" sounds odd. Maybe "assisted two existing CIA operations"
 * Done
 * " Atlee Philips" Who was he?
 * David Atlee Phillips: He's already linked, though...
 * "Operation KUGOWN also released a large quantity of communist propaganda material that had been brought into Guatemala from the outside" Brought in by the CIA or PGT?
 * Not the CIA, but not just the PGT: a lot of folks read communist literature. I've reworded it.
 * "Anti-Communist members of the US Congress" Surely all members were anti-communist.
 * Dunno, maybe some more explicitly than others? It's what the source says, so I think I ought to stick to that...
 * I think "Some members of the US Congress" would be better rather than quoting the author's POV description. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "purportedly investigating the penetration of communist influence" "purportedly" is POV. It implies that Kersten knew that the allegation was false. Also, was the allegation false? If I understand the article correctly, there was communist influence as the PGT was awowedly communist. The issue was whether it was indigenous or Soviet -inspired.
 * "this report also claimed that Soviet weapons had been brought covertly to Guatemala by submarine" "also falsely claimed"?
 * Better, yes. Done.
 * "This unintentionally drew attention to Operation WASHTUB, a CIA effort to foist incriminating weapons on the Guatemalan government." How? Was the operation publicly exposed?
 * "This somewhat scholarly research" "somewhat scholarly" is POV and better deleted.
 * Done
 * "Writing in 2008 author Jeremy Gunn compared PBHISTORY to a similarly unsuccessful attempt by the US to justify the invasion of Iraq after it had occurred.[" This seems a curious comparison as they were so different. I am surprised you do not mention the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Were the two operations not connected by critics as examples of unjustifiable US interference?
 * The intervention itself, yes. This is covered in more detail at the article on the coup. PBHistory specifically, though, was linked to the post-Iraq invasion justifications, rather than the invasion itself; as attempts to justify interventions after the fact.
 * This is a good article, but there is some POV language and use of initials and mention of people which assumes previous knowledge. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've been working with this topic for a while, so I'm likely to drop in terms without defining them: thanks for pointing them out. I'll do my best to fix the language, which is something of a by-product of using sources which, though academic, are decidedly angry at the entire situation.
 * I've addressed all your comments, I do believe. There's a few that might need further discussion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See replies above. There are two comments you have not replied to. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been a little starved of attention, and has been open for six weeks without attracting any support. I think the best way to kick start something is to archive this now. Whether a PR would help, I'm not sure, but certainly feel free to ping the reviewers have commented here once this is renominated. In any case, this can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.