Template:Did you know nominations/The Chinese Road

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) 11:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese Road

(

)

... ~~that the sole conclusion drawn about The Chinese Road was that Laos had a new northern border?~~
ALT1: ~~pending~~... ~~that the sole known conclusion drawn about The Chinese Road was that Laos had a new northern border?~~
ALT2: ... that the Chinese aid project in Laos was defended by 400 antiaircraft guns and 25,000 troops?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/White House Big Dig
Comment: Background section has been previously used in a prior article, and cannot be counted toward article length or copyvio.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough, and well written. QPQ is done. No copyvio found. However, the hook is unsatisfactory. It begs the question of who drew "the sole conclusion"? After reading the article, I can see that it was by an anonymous CIA analyst, but there's no doubt that other people (the Chinese, the Laotians, the Vietnamese, or other US analysts) have drawn other conclusions about the road, so the hook is almost certainly inaccurate. It needs to be clarified that it's the CIA that couldn't figure out what the road was for. -Zanhe (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is doubtless that other conclusions exist, where are they? If you have any contrary sources denying the veracity of the hook, please refer them to me so I may emend the article. As for the sole conclusion being an anonymous one, so what? A hook is supposed to be intriguing and mysterious, so long as it is true.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a thing called WP:COMMONSENSE, and no source is required for that. The hook is true only from the extremely limited perspective of a single CIA analyst, not from a global perspective. A while ago there was a hook about an unsolved murder case (sorry, don't remember the article name), which said something like "nobody knows who killed John Doe", citing reliable media reports. It was pulled when someone pointed out that the murderer obviously knew, so the hook was untrue, even if it was true from the perspective of the general public. No source was required to prove that the murderer knew who killed the victim, only common sense. -Zanhe (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Common sense says that when 25,000 Chinese troops occupied the Pakbeng Valley of Laos, it then became part of China. I mean, the Chinese shot at intruders. As the occupation was dependent on the highway, the Lao, the Thai, and the Americans were all concerned. As for anybody's conclusions, I spent the entire first paragraph of the Politico-Military Section giving the various theories of various agencies concerning the Road (although I could not find anything by State Dept). Then I found a single conclusion. But the whole thing is too subtle to support the hook, and as you pointed out, ambiguous in an unintended way. So, back to square one. Give me a couple of days, please, so I can rattle up a great ALT1.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have recast original hook as ALT1. If you deem it unsatisfactory, strike it out. I also offer a different set of facts in ALT2.
Thank you for your patience in mulling over these alternatives. Delving into these secret operations is often a slippery business.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing ALT2, which I think is more interesting than the original one and verified with inline references. AGF for offline refs. Good to go. And thank you for your prolific contributions on the Laotian Civil War topic. -Zanhe (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your patience and cogent comments evoked that ALT2 from me, and for that I thank you for helping me improve the nom.01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)