Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:FSS


Did you know nomination

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 Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that war hawks claimed that the media stabbed the United States in the back during the Vietnam War? Source: Kimball, Jeffrey (2008). "The Enduring Paradigm of the 'Lost Cause': Defeat in Vietnam, the Stab-in-the-Back Legend, and the Construction of a Myth". In Macleod, Jenny (ed.). Defeat and Memory: Cultural Histories of Military Defeat in the Modern Era. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 233–250. ISBN 978-0-230-51740-0.
    • ALT1:... that a stab-in-the-back myth asserts that American media or civilians were responsible for the United States' failure in the Vietnam War? Source: Same

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 06:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article: Created within the last week, long enough, neutral enough and well sourced (I can't access the offline sources, but I've done a web search and verified the existence and broad assertions of the sources that seem to support the article). Green tickY
  • QPQ: Checks out Green tickY
  • Hook: Due to the fact that the sources are offline I'm not confident about approving the first hook. I am happy to approve ALT1 which is neutral, interesting, supported by sources and in an appropriate format.Green tickY
Would you like me to give a tick to ALT1 or would you like me to try harder to verify your original hook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me to use ALT1 (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 approved Pi (Talk to me!) 02:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism & German comparison

I added a "dubious tag" to the line: "Unlike the German myth, the American variant lacks an antisemitic undercurrent." While the focus of this myth is often not Jews, that depends on which advocates of the myth we are talking about. A recent book by Katherine Belew, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America[1], argues that a combination of the Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth and paramilitarism were foundation to were foundational to post-1975 white nationalism. She provides numerous examples of antisemitic renditions of the myth, while not claiming that either the myth or believers in it were uniformly antisemitic. It's worth incorporating this information into this article.--Carwil (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't use the term "stab in the back", so it is probably WP:OR to include here. Also, three of the four proponents of the myth mentioned in this article were Jews. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: The article is completely one sided

This article is almost completely one sided. I'm surprised that it passed a DYK nomination. "Right wing war hawks"? Who is to say what is "myth" and what is not? Why isn't Johnson, a Democrat who was fundamental in getting the United States into that war, referred to as a "war hawk?? There is next to no all around perspective covered in this article. I was no big fan of the Vietnam war and felt, and feel, that American troops should only be employed in the defense of their country, but I indeed witnessed how the media was fundamental in skewing the coverage of that war, to the point where returning veterans were virtually spit on, called "baby killers" etc, by the naive and obsessed 'friends of America' crowd, foreign and donestic. Having said that, the coverage of this article is lopsided, and seems like an advocacy article for Jeffrey Kimball who is mentioned by name in the lede and elsewhere in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree - the term "war hawk" is pejorative in nature and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. This topic should be subject to further investigation, and definitely isn't done justice by a Start-class article (even this arguably counts for a stub considering the complete and utter disregard for encyclopedic convention and neutral information. ASide8 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm surprised that this could be a DYK.Mztourist (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this something that some writer just recently made up?

Though there have been frequent references to a "stab in the back theory" in Germany between the World Wars, I have yet to have seen the term used in any work about the Vietnam War. I am surprised this wasn't picked up on.Foofbun (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War with Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth

This is a WP:POVFORK of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War, which was no myth. As that article is much larger and better developed, the myth of a myth would be better placed in context there. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a "personal attack" on the person, but all things considered, a called for criticism of the work, IMO. Though the Vietnam war is 'ancient history', if I may, it would be unfair to say the myth is "dead" because it had no basis whatsoeever, which is an opinion and the general perspective of this article. The article doesn't mention that while Kennedy increased the number of military advisors it was the Democrat Johnson Administration that turned our limited capacity in Vietnam into an all-out war. When Nixon assumed office, a slow withdrawal of troops finally began. So who are the "war hawks" here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to a reliable source quoted in the article, Johnson administration promoted a version of the myth. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Johnson is not referred to as a "war hawk". The lede in this article says, "Proponents of the myth, typically right-wing war hawks, blame the defeat on various American groups, such as civilian policymakers, the media, anti-war protestors, United States Congress, political liberals, and/or the Democratic Party". Johnson, and his "great society" was consider a "liberal" by any standard. Yet according to the lede, proponents of the myth blame the liberals and the Democrats -- Johnson was both. That is yet another inconsistency with this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to Kimball the myth was promoted by war hawks, especially those from the right wing ("war hawks" I understand as a descriptive term for someone who supports a particular war) and the various groups blamed may include any of the named groups. That's not an inconsistency. I understand Johnson was opposed to anti-war protests and disliked the media coverage of the war.[4] (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to Kimbal, who seems to be the central figure behind the coverage here, is mentioned by name three times in this article, including the lede. Again, Johnson, who disliked the anti-war protests and disliked media coverage, is not considered a "war hawk". That Johnson, the President who escalated that war, found exception to media coverage, gives much credence to the idea that the media was fundamental in pressuring elected officials, and others, to treat the war with kid gloves and prolong that war to the point of self defeat. Given Johnson's escalation of US involvement in Vietnam along with his contentions against media coverage, this seems to fit the POV profile of "war hawks" more than most other so labeled individuals. Imo, that is a glaring inconsistency with this seemingly advocacy article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Clearly you don't like Kimball, but the other reliable sources I've found don't criticize his concept of "stab-in-the-back" and find it useful for analysis. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His analysis has over looked people like Johnson and seems to assume the media had no influence on elected officials and others. Even Johnson didn't like the media's overall coverage, all the while people like Jane Fonda were doing all they could to sway public opinion which in effect helped to hobble the effort in Vietnam.
Also, the NPOV tag is not about a dispute over sources, but rather that there is a neutrality dispute still in progress. You must know an article can invoke NPOV issues regardless of what sources are used to effect this. Again, the coverage is one sided and overlooks central figures like Johnson. Until this sort of issue is adequately addressed and remedied, the tag should remain, which is reasonable. Please don't engage in a slow-mo edit war over this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, please keep in mind that your personal conjecture and original research have no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia's content policies. Your criticism of Kimball will be noted once it has been published by a reliable academic press, not before.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed that the phenomenon is not real, or that the sources are not reliable, but that the article is one sided, esp in its coverage of Johnson, who by the article's standard is also a "war hawk". This needs to be dealt with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, you are commenting in the wrong thread. This thread is discussing a merge of the article content to a different article. Those that oppose such a merge have argued that the "stab-in-the-back" myth is a distinct topic from general opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and hence merits a standalone article. Your advocacy for an NPOV tag belongs in the separate thread on that topic. There is no need to WP:BLUDGEON this thread by repeating yourself here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please -- I was responding to your comment, also in this section. The topics are now overlapping, so let's not digress into this sort of snipping which also involves the proposed merge, and stick to the greater issue of how this topic is being covered, with albeit reliable sources, but in a capacity that we are ignoring Johnson who fits the bill of "war hawks", far more than many of those "right wingers" that some individuals seem to love to hate. Once again, it is possible to present a one-sided account using reliable sources. As an experienced editor I'm a bit surprised that such a common affair here at WP escapes you. The coverage of Johnson here is a definitive example of such an affair. Again, Johnson, who escalated the war and who criticized media coverage, while Nixon gradually withdrew U.S. forces and ultimately got the U.S. out of Vietnam seems to be a classic example of this affair. Who in reality were the "war hawks"? History is filled with examples of ones who scheme and then lay blame on the other opposing party. Or are you assuming that the idea of betrayal, or being stabbed in the back, per the likes of Jane Fonda who was coddled by much of the media, was just spun out of thin air with zero facts to support that premise? To her credit, Fonda later apologized for her naive and divisive remarks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the two are completely different topics. The myth does exist and is supported by revisionist history about the war (e.g. Lewis Sorley's A Better War, Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory and others) and so this page should be retained.Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The NPOV tag was just removed on the basis that there was no consensus. Given the divisive language the article employs, and the advocacy given, i.e. "Jeffrey Kimball wrote..." and "According to Lien-Hang T. Nguyen...", with no other perspective that this "myth" has some basis in reality, it would seem the NPOV tag is called for until (much) more balance and objectivity is brought to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the article accurately summarizes what reliable sources say about the subject and correctly attributes opinions according to WP:NPOV. Quoting from a recent peer-reviewed paper which devotes a couple pages of analysis to the myth: (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gawthorpe, Andrew (2020). "Ken Burns, the Vietnam War, and the purpose of history". Journal of Strategic Studies. 43 (1): 154–169. doi:10.1080/01402390.2019.1631974. "Moyar’s critique shows that a line of argument that Jeffrey Kimball long ago called the 'stab-in-the-back legend' remains alive and well. The stab-in-the-back legend displays classic characteristics of what psychologists call in-group/out-group bias, in which every action by an in-group is rationalized and justified whereas every action by an out-group is criticized and seen as inspired by perverse motives. Through this pattern of thought, the 'stab-in-the-back' interpretation externalizes blame for U.S. defeat entirely to civilian policymakers. A virtuous and effective military had its hands tied by villainous civilians who, pandering to base political instincts, betrayed the soldiers (and eventually South Vietnam) by failing to allow them to do what was needed to win." (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A peer reviewed source by itself doesn't establish the idea that the article is neutral. The article overall is still is focused on one POV. The language by itself more than substantiates this idea. Are you saying there are no other RS that present a different view? We still have an advocacy issue that also needs to be addressed. -- Also, a NPOV tag doesn't say the article is in fact 'not neutral', it only says that the neutrality is being "disputed", which is clearly the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any reliable sources which discussed "stab-in-the-back" theories with regards to Vietnam and stated that they are accurate, i.e. not a myth. In order to substantiate the view that this article is not NPOV, you would need to find such sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the tag – Unless one or two reliable sources can be presented to "fix" the alleged imbalance. Even then, the tag should be removed once content drawn from these hypothetical sources has been added to the article. Any change in title should be proposed in an RM. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of 'Myth' is still given much more coverage, even advocacy, than the idea that some members of Congress and much of the media worked earnestly to impede the effort in Vietnam. I am not very familiar with all the sources and public figures involved, but I do know that war could have been won in a year or two and many lives saved in the long run -- the US certainly had the means to do so, while the media was largely responsible for the "war hawks" and "baby killer" school of thought that returning vets had to deal with upon their arrival home. Are we to believe there are no RS whatsoever that cover that perspective? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such sources would have to directly address the idea of "stab-in-the-back" to avoid being WP:OR, and be of comparable quality to the sources already cited in the article (or else we would be dealing with WP:FALSEBALANCE, as C&C states above). (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's be mindful that this could easily become a contest over sources, with each side claiming that their sources are the most reliable. In such cases the coverage should be neutral. e.g. 'Smith' said this, however, 'Jones' said that – without drawing any conclusions of our own.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any basis for an NPOV tag; this article appears to reflect the best scholarship on the topic, and Gwillhickers has yet to substantiate his objections by reference to a single reliable source. Wikipedia is not required to present a WP:FALSEBALANCE. "I do know that war could have been won in a year or two and many lives saved in the long run ... " That is your own original research and is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the fact that Johnson, who was not "right wing" and who escalated the war, while finding fault with the media's coverage, yet is not referred to as a "war hawk", is reason enough for the NPOV tag. It is possible to present a one-sided POV using reliable sources and that seems to be the case here. Also, the apparent assumption that the media played no role in swaying political and public opinion and effecting war time policy decisions by elected officials, always weary about how the media will portray them, is a bit naive. However, finding sources that outline this has admittedly been very difficult, which is why I've made no edits to this effect in the article. On Talk pages, however, editors are permitted to voice their opinions in the hopes that it will lead to balanced article coverage by those more familiar with this highly opinionated topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_stab-in-the-back_myth&oldid=976280164"