Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnam Veterans for Factual History

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am willing to provide a copy to the user for userspace if they so request, but the consensus is clearly to delete at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Veterans for Factual History[edit]

Vietnam Veterans for Factual History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primarily NPOV concerns, also notability concerns. The group is not particularly prominent, and I don't think the POV concerns are repairable. Many of the references don't support any statements in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. I think notability is satisfied by the recent publicity concerning their letter to PBS and Bank of America. That's why I added the article. As for POV concerns, I will leave that up to others to decide since i have a COI. Txantimedia (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by Many of the references don't support any statements in the article. Perhaps I can address that. I thought that they did (obviously). Txantimedia (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but perhaps Txantimedia can clarify things. Since it's an advocacy group, I don't think POV is a big deal (although there might be an issue of undue weight in the Reception section of the Burns/Novick documentary at the moment...). Notability seems the bigger issue. The vast, vast majority of the references aren't really references, or are WP:PRIMARY source articles by members themselves. If somebody decides to establish a new philosophy and "reference" the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or the Communist Manifesto, etc., while those sources might inform this philosophy, they aren't really references about the philosophy itself. It's the same problem here: there's a lot of references to other stuff (Swift Boat Vets, Books written by authors the VVFH like, etc.), but do these references talk about the VVFH? What references are to articles that actually talk about the VVFH? From the "The Vietnam War" Burns documentary article, apparently The Washington Times had a brief story concerning them (Vietnam veterans challenge Ken Burns on the accuracy of his epic documentary), but this is not a very deep article; it's practically a press release where they just regurgitate some claims. @Txantimedia: Are there sources by non-VVFH members out there that talk about, specifically, the VVFH, not the Vietnam War? And do so in some detail, rather than simply acknowledging they exist, or are an interview with a member? SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources, but I don't think they're acceptable to Wikipedia. Most of the discussion of the group has been from politically-right sites. I confess, I haven't done an extensive search for sources. When the stories hit the news sites, I thought perhaps it deserved an article, but discussion in secondary sources of the group don't exist (AFAIK) before the recent "surfacing" in national pubs. I'll poke around and see if I can find anything. Txantimedia (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Many of the citations don't appear to discuss this group. Neutralitytalk 01:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with that is that the genesis of the group was the previous efforts by veterans. Many of the people involved in VVFH were also involved in those previous efforts. So, anything prior to inception (2014) isn't going to mention the group, because it didn't exist. However, those sources are important in describing why the group exists now. Txantimedia (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious WP:SYNTH concerns with this. Neutralitytalk 02:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Txantimedia is suggesting would need a rename to Historiography of the Vietnam War (and Vietnam War myths would probably be merged to that page). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography of the Vietnam War is a good example of an article we should have. Neutralitytalk 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the subject of such an article? How would this article fit in to that? Txantimedia (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think this article would fit into a historiography article at all. A Vietnam War historiography article would cover the academic literature/history debate on the subject, e.g., https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ipr.2013.4, https://academic.oup.com/dh/article-abstract/18/2/239/487420?redirectedFrom=PDF. Neutralitytalk 04:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of sources that I assume are unacceptable: [1][2][3] and here are two that are possibly RS [4][5]. I struggle with RS, because some things simply can't be documented without referring to sources that some would call biased. It's a fact of life, for example, that the recent story about Roy Moore authoring a course that included negative views toward women can be sourced primarily to left-leaning sites. When issues are contentious (and little is more contentions than the Vietnam War), views that are considered revisionist simply won't be discussed in RS. They aren't going to touch it unless something earth-shattering forces them to. Yet, many groups exist that perhaps should be known about on Wikipedia but don't exist on Wikipedia because they haven't hit the front page of the Washington Post (for example.) Swift Vets and POWS for Truth has a page because of the uproar they caused that was covered widely. The Winter Soldier site, OTOH, doesn't exist on Wikipedia because it was never discussed in the news. Yet, it was the genesis of much of the information the Swift Vets used. You might say it was their research arm. Does it not deserve an article? As far as the prose of the article goes, I'm perfectly happy to have other editors review and edit it. I don't claim to be a perfect writer or unaffected by my biases. Txantimedia (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for stand alone article and poor sourcing. Kierzek (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more sources: [6][7][8][9]. Does it matter that their books are being cited in other works now? [10][11] I don't know if it matters, but some of the members have pages on Wikipedia, and many members have written books that are cited in other scholarly works. Academics is a different breed from other types of notoriety. Newspapers seldom write about them, except to consult with them on their specialties. You're much more likely to find out about an academic when they publish an oped than you are to read a news story about them - unless they're involved in a scandal. Txantimedia (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Txantimedia: If you can show that books/articles written by members are cited, widely, then this might be grounds for notability. As I see it VVFH isn't cited much (I see approximately three cites) - however it might be omitted from the citation line. Coverage of the group itself in news sources doesn't seem to be enough for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cited for what? I'm currently working on a draft for Robert F. Turner. His books have been cited hundereds of times by legal scholars, including his books on the Vietnam War. Lewis Sorley is a member. His books have been cited numerous times, and his book A Better War was reported as read by Obama. Mark Moyar is a member. His books have been cited numerous times, especially his Triumph Forsaken, which caused quite a stir in the academic community. Geoffrey Shaw is a member. HIs book, Lost Mandate of Heaven, currently has academia in an uproar. George Veith is a member. HIs book, Black April has been cited often. The problem is, you can't say these things in an article like this. In the article on Turner, I can mention his cites. Same for the others. So, I'm in a quandary. I'd really prefer to get help to improve the article before deleting it. I'm certain others could improve it, and I'm too close to it to do as good a job as others could. I do think it's worthy of inclusion, however, because of the recent national exposure, which is only going to increase over time. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I think it's helpful. I can do the work to demonstrate citing in my sandbox, if that would help. Txantimedia (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created a document in my sandbox that shows the cites for a few of our members. User:Txantimedia/sandbox I haven't checked all the members. We have 23 that have published books on Vietnam. Also, another member is Sol Sanders, a longtime journalist on Southeast Asia. He has written hundreds of articles for US News and World Report and other major media outlets.
I should note that, because I have a COI (I'm a member too), I never would have written this article where it not for the recent publicity. Perhaps I was premature. That's for others to decide. But I do think notability in the academic arena is an entirely different beast from politics, entertainment or business, which are the greatest focus of the news media. Txantimedia (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Having members of an organization who have written about the war may make the members notable but not so the organization.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If an organization is formed that includes several people notable enough to have standalone articles in Wikipedia, does that not make the organization notable? Mark Moyar, Lewis Sorley, Sol Sanders, James S. Robbins and Michael Lee Lanning all have pages on Wikipedia, and I'm working on an article for Robert F. Turner which I feel confident will be accepted because of his credentials. Txantimedia (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a NOTINHERITED issue, though you might be able to claim WP:LISTN (e.g. list of authors who are members of VVFH (so not on VVFH, but on the group of notable people)). Are these notable authors signing off as VVFH members on their notable books? If so, you might have a claim given the citations of the books.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. I'll go read up on NOTINHERITED and WP:LISTN. Most of the books were written before the group was formed. So, they would not have mentioned VVFH, because it didn't exist at the time they submitted their manuscript to the publisher. Txantimedia (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable group, written by an admitted conflict-of-interest-possessing editor. A smattering of fringe media (Newbusters, the Moonies' Washington Times, etc...) name-dropping it or it's notable members does not grant notabiliy on the group itself. ValarianB (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help me to understand this. Wikipedia has a page for the Special Forces Association. It lists the notable members and not much else. Should I nominate that for deletion? There are only two references and neither of them is RS. I would think that the Special Forces Association is encyclopedia material, and that's why it's there. Yet, every one of you has voted to delete this article, which is another association along the same lines. We have several members who have standalone articles in Wikipedia (I just discovered another one - William L Stearman. I was not aware I could list our members like that, and I was trying to avoid bragging about our members (although they are worth bragging about.) I can rework the article so it meets the standards, but I need to understand what the standards are. Why is the Special Forces Association article acceptable, yet the Vietnam Veterans for Factual History is not? Have the standards changed? Are pages being judged and scrutinized more stringently now? Would the assistance of an experienced editor help in improving the article? Why are Newsbusters and Washington Times "fringe" media? Is only the NY Times acceptable? Is there a list somewhere that defines precisely which sources are acceptable and which are not? Txantimedia (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a mention of the group with a cite in The Vietnam War (TV series)#Critical reception with an internal link to this article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link to which you refer is that VVAH wrote a letter to Ken Burns; this is hardly a notable act.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's notable that the group has written a letter to PBS, Ken Burns and Bank of America challenginge them to a debate and demanding that they make corrections to the documentary? That the letter has been discussed on national news and radio stations? Really? What exactly IS notable? Txantimedia (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the slightest, no. Please read WP:Bludgeon when you have a moment, you're digging yourself into a hole by challenging each and every user who calls for deletion, in my opinion. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I thought, as the author of the article, I was supposed to respond to the criticisms to provide information so a decision could be reached. Txantimedia (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasons cited above. That the group has written a letter, no matter to whom or what is demanded, is hardly notable. Nor that "the letter has been discussed on national news and radio stations", especially when the so-called "discussion" is hardly more than acknowledgement that a complaint was made. The sources are very thin, and even incestous, reminding me of a tactic used by the "creation science" people: write a bunch of articles citing each other. I particularly note Txantimedia's comments (above, emphasis added) "We have several members", and "I was trying to avoid bragging about our members...." It appears he is connected with the organization; he should declare whether he is, or not. Overall, it appears that article is part of an organization's campaign to boost itself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that I had COI. I resent that you're claiming I was trying to be deceptive. At this point, I'm inclinded to delete the page myself. Is that allowable? Txantimedia (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Per the tag: "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." You're not allowed to preempt the process.
I did not claim that you were "trying to be deceptive", and if you are going to be that careless and/or thin-skinned you will quite likely collect a few bruises. Strictly speaking, your mention in passing that you have a COI is hardly a declaration. Please examine WP:COI. Note especially that if you have been paid by VVFH then you must disclose that. Note also that "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete non-notable organization. The content needs to be transferred to the articles of the members of this organization. Lorstaking (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vietnam_Veterans_for_Factual_History&oldid=1138739423"