Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An incident in Saigon on Christmas Eve. A hotel used to house US officers was bombed by the Vietcong. Unfortunately I have run out of info, I trawled through the first 50 hits on google books. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well researched. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It is an excellently written article, but I have a few minor points. First of all, would it be possible to have more pictures? Either of the hotel before the bombing, more of the aftermath, or even Johnson or another of his advisers would be nice. There's also a quote near the end, "U.S. and international opinion towards an American air strike would be that Johnson was "trying to shoot its way out of an internal [South Vietnamese] political crisis"." It in that case refers to Johnson, so either that should be replaced with parentheses or only part of the quote should be used so it sounds better. The main issue that I have is the way the references are formatted. It looks much better if you split up the references into a "Notes" section which justs lists the footnotes (Author, p. X), and a References section, which has the full {{cite}} information for all the sources. If these and the other changes could be implemented, it would be more than ready. – Joe Nutter 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder why splitting the books would be necessary if each book only has one footnote - as each book only has two pages that are relvant. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I believe the article covers the subject well. I would suggest splitting the paragraph under the "Execution" section into two paragraphs. I didn't do it because I didn't know for sure which citation to place at the end of the first paragraph. Otherwise, good to go. Cla68 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments:[reply]
- There isn't any backround for the event in the article, not even a brief paragraph explaining why the Americans were in Saigon in the first place, why they were staying at the Brinks Hotel as opposed to any other hotel, or why the Vietcong didn't like that they were there. This article appears to give some background but it wasn't linked to in the article that I could find.
- Added background although I choose not to link to the article which is mostly undsourced. Not sure why the MACV chose this hotel rather than another, I guess they would have concluded that the rent and facilities were better but I doubt any historians care about hotels....and if they were billeted somewhere else, the VC would attacked that instead, like they did after a new embassy was built before the Tet Offensive. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any background on the bombers? Were they from Saigon? How long had they been volunteering for the Vietcong? Why did they join the Vietcong? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Stanley Karnow seems to have been the only one to have recorded an interview with the VC agent. I couldn't find anyone else on google books who gave info on him and Karnow's coverage of the bombing was the most detailed with respect to the incident. VC details seem to be much less documented than PAVN, I guess the lack of national archives on the VC is the problem. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.