Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma II-65 war game
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 03:36, 7 December 2014 by imported>Georgejdorner (Cites fixed. Mystery remains.)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sigma II-65 war game
- ... that the Sigma II-65 war game was held although four prior Sigma games foresaw that escalating the Vietnam War would lead to more U.S. casualties?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bathycrinus aldrichianus
- Comment: There is probably no better example of an influential group of politically powerful men ignoring the blatantly obvious than Sigma II-65 than the Johnson administration blowing off this war simulation. At least four previous Sigma war games had warned that American intervention in Vietnam would be unsuccessful; after war's end, they could be seen as "eerily prophetic". (Quote courtesy of H. R. McMasters). Nevertheless, Lyndon Baines Johnson shunned the predictions of Sigma II-65 and pressed on in a losing cause. "He's knee deep in the Big Muddy, but the big fool says push on." (And thank you, Pete Seeger.)
- (DISCLOSURE The lead to this article is being used in several allied articles. NONE of that lead should be counted for qualifying any article for DYK.)
Created/expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
OK, just a couple of quick notes. The article is new enough and large enough, even if the lead is excluded. The hook is fine. Two minor remarks: 1) as a DYK article, it shouldn't be tagged as a stub, and 2) inline referencing should be fixed ("increased American casualties.[2]", "supervised election in the south.[7]" and the like). Will continue the review within a day or two, hopefully. GregorB (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I posted a stub template when I began the article; some categorist changed it to a stub according to them. I posted the template I should had on this article's Talk page from the start, and rated the article Start class.
- I did not post those dead cites like that. I don't know what happened to cause that. It's going to be a pain in the posterior to recheck every single cite in that article, but I'll get it done and let you know when it is fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- A backtrack through edit history shows that some of my proper cites vanished between 0833 and 0836 19 November. The cyber-cops have been notified of the theft.
- Enough cheap wit. The cites are fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)