Talk:Gulf of Tonkin incident

message: This article (in particular its lead section) presents two events as equal halves of the larger "Gulf of Tonkin incident". Worse, it barely describes the "second" incident other than it most likely being false while going into detail about the events of the "first" incident. This seems to contradict the sources which primarily refer to only the August 4 event as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" and to the August 2 event as a mere prelude. Googling "Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident" gives almost no results. It appears to have been coined by this article. Particularly strange is the military conflict infobox for the August 2 event. I would argue that the scope needs to be redefined to fit the sources, with the August 4 incident becoming the sole primary topic and the August 2 incident being included as a smaller prelude. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the summary (lead) and the info box should be revised to fit the main article. I think most sources (and, at this point, the main body of the article) say that both the August 2 battle and the August 4 (erroneously) perceived battle were part of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.  Over the next several days I could propose a revision of the lead if no one else does.  Sean Barnett (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs revision but I do not agree with User:Prinsgezinde that the supposed August 4 attack was the main incident and August 2 a mere prelude. An actual attack took place on August 2, no attack took place on August 4. Both the real and purported attack comprise the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.  Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They are most certainly related and notable in their own right and I would never suggest filtering out the August 2 incident or minimizing it. However, the August 2 incident features far less prominently in the sources but more prominently in this article. This would be contrary to the policy of due weight. I think the current weight balance between these two is exactly the opposite of what it should be (in the lead at least). Furthermore, I don't think Wikipedia should coin terms like "Second Gulf of Tonkin incident". Sources only describe one incident, even if it comprises two (both real and imaginary) engagements.  Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your assertion that "the August 2 incident features far less prominently in the sources but more prominently in this article." I think the article provides a good balance of detail regarding both attacks and then the later section goes into detail on the fact that no attack took place on August 4. I'm not sure where you get the "Second Gulf of Tonkin incident" from. Mztourist (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I would propose as a revised summary (Sean Barnett (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I've made some changes to the lede, I don't think anything more is required. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks fine at this point too. Sean Barnett (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: It’s entirely reasonable to state what the NSA’s own historian in its in-house journal, Cryptologic Quarterly, writes about the NSA itself. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikivoice seems fine here to me also. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status quo lead