Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cuban missile crisis)
Jump to: navigation, search

Inconsistency About Cuba's Position[edit]

  • In the introduction the article states: "Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba".
  • In section "Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba", the article states that soviets ambassador "Alexandr Ivanovich Alexeyev" [..] "argued that Castro would not accept the deployment of these missiles".

So, there must be something wrong or missing. Wouldn't Cuba articulate its request through the ambassador? Or wouldn't he be at least one of the first to know about it? (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I believe the ambassador would have at least to know what was happening. I don't believe he was ignorant towards the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinsroom13 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lt. Leonard LeMaster[edit]

My great-uncle was one of the guys who flew under the radar and snapped pictures here, if someone wants to look into it and maybe add his name somewhere. Here's an article.


In the section on Operation Anadyr, 4th paragraph, it says "Further, the deployment would include short-range tactical weapons (with a range of 40 kM, usable only against naval vessels) that would provide a "nuclear umbrella" for attacks upon the island.". This should of course be km, for kilometres, not kM for kilomolar (not that that exists anyway). Would correct, but article is locked.

Another typo or something odd is right after the first cite. "something that they would otherwise not do.[1]:10". [1] is the cite, but what is the :10, which appears in superscript? Is it a grammar error in the link to the cite?2610:8:6800:45:20A:95FF:FEC4:244A (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014[edit]

Please revert the most recent edit. User changed United States to Murica. Zerfallen (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering how you could find out what citation methods this page uses? I noticed that there wasn't necessarily a uniform use of the major citation methods (APA, MLA) across Wikipedia, and I was wondering if anyone could help me out in this regard Qim1 (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cuban missile crisisCuban Missile CrisisNomination and Support This is a request (and can someone who knows how these requests are formatted and distributed help in formalizing it, thanks) to recapitalize the articles name. The common name of the crisis now seems to be capitalized, and seems to be further becoming the more common name as the years go by (one example, see the Google books ngrams summary for even the lower-case name, linked here.). A look at the titles of the capitalization in the pages references, and after a non-exhaustive review of those articles, convinces me that the references use the capitalization (please do your own review of this - I'm not a pro at these type of Wikipedia requests, so others may find mistakes in this vote request). And both a Bing and a Google search of even the lower-case spelling show that the capitalization of the name has become the common name (governmental agencies such as the U.S. State Department, etc., the John F. Kennedy Library, and so forth). Many magazines, such as The Atlantic and Foreign Affairs have articles which include the lower-case spelling, so these are of mixed results (the New York Times, for example, is not consistent, and spells the crisis both ways), so please take those into account as well if you are seeking to oppose this request (although, as mentioned, it seems the growing and obvious majority of the search engine results show capitalization, with Wikipedia's entry beginning to stand out as a listing which maybe now has become out-of-date). This page was capitalized from 2003 until a vote in 2012, listed in talk archive 2, which the majority of voters opposed, but was agreed to for reasons I don't yet understand. So, in trying to rectify what might be a mistake, I ask for a wider vote and discussion of this proposal. Thanks, and please assist with data and links on both sides of this request, as well as help with adding proper Wikipedian notifications and pings. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Randy, thank you for linking some actual data, which should be plenty to convince people that this term is not consistently capitalized in sources.

I think we can mostly agree that the google n-gram viewer, which summarizes occurrences of word combinations in many books over many years, with case sensitivity, is a useful though complicated and incomplete tool for viewing usage in reliable sources.

Here are some views of the capitalization contrast for the Cuban missile crisis:

  • [1] – the one you linked, showing that overall, capitalization was in a minority but has slowly increased over time, up to about 60% in 2008.
  • [2] – shows that comparing in a context that more likely to be in a sentence (following by 'in' or 'was'), which eliminates many headings, title, and citations to other titles, the lowercase is still in the majority through 2008. The trend toward more capitalization in the 2004–2008 range likely has some small influence from wikipedia (which had caps during 2003–2012), and more recent data would have more influence, which is why I generally don't trust any such stats from very recent years (and we can't get them from n-grams anyway).
  • [3] – shows that of words following Cuban Missile Crisis, 'of' and 'and' are most likely (especially with the capitalization), and finish up slightly more capitalized in 2008. Clicking through to book search, you can see why:
  • "Cuban Missile Crisis of" finds frequent citation to book titles The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: A Case in National Security Crisis Management, and Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 - Studies in the Employment of Air Power, and chapter titles such as "The Rhetoric of Deflection: John F Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962."
  • "Cuban Missile Crisis and" finds frequent citations to book titles The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Threat of Nuclear War: Lessons from History and Soviet-American Crisis Management in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the October War, and chapters "The Cuban Missile Crisis and Intelligence Performance" and articles such as "October Missiles and November Elections: The Cuban Missile Crisis and American Politics, 1962"
Since such titles and citations to them are normally set in title case, they provide no indication that the author or editor thought that such words as Rhetoric or Case or Air Power or Missile Crisis were parts of proper names. But they do add to the overall count that the n-gram stats show you. If you want better stats on what proportion of books treat Cuban Missile Crisis as a proper name, you have to go through book hits looking for how they use it in a sentence. This will often knock out half or more the general capitalized hit stats.
And keep in mind that even if caps were in the majority in sources (which they are clearly not in this case), that's far short of our criterion of "consistently capitalized" in reliable sources, which is what it takes to indicate that caps are necessary as opposed to optional. Dicklyon (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe ngrams should be used in these discussions. They barely contain any of all books out there. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a sample of barely 5.2 million books. Maybe you can show us results from a few that they missed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
5.2 million books actually isn't reallly a lot of titles considering how much books are actually out there... >.> Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So tell us about a book or two that you have access to that Google books does not. So far, I think I found all the ones I looked for from the reference list, but of course there's selection bias there; so what you got to go by? If you don't have millions handy, maybe just a thousand; or a hundred; or ten; or one. Do you have even one single book that mentions the Cuban missile crisis that Google books hasn't scanned and counted? Please share. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Well no because I don't collect books about the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I do not that your claim about Cuban Missiles Crisis not being considered a proper noun is what you call TOTALLY FALSE because:

1 uses capitalization
2 Atomic Archive uses capitalization
3 JFK Presidential Library and Museum uses capitalization
4 US Department of State uses capitalization
5 uses capitalization
6 uses capitalization
7 uses capitalization
8 this amazing paper from Hawaii Pacific uses capitalization

etc. Clearly, some people have other opinions than you. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is not hard to find web pages and books that use caps. In recent books, nearly half do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent book data[edit]

Several editors have extrapolated the n-gram data, which only goes through 2008, to claim that surely by now uppercase usage must be more common. We can test that hypothesis by selecting recent books and looking inside them (in sentences) to see how they treat the Cuban missile crisis. I used a Google book search constrained to 2009 and later, and only books with previews available, so I'd have a good chance of looking inside.

This query: [4]; and subsequent pages. For each book, you need to look inside, find usage in sentence, if any, and what case. A few never use the phrase in a sentence, and a few have it with mixed case, but most are not that hard to interpret. Here are the first 25 hits I got, annotated by year and upper or lower case (u.c. or l.c.):

  • 2012 mixed; mostly u.c.

Conclusion: however you want to count, uppercase is still not dominant; in fact it's in a significant minority behind lowercase. So the extrapolated trend conjectures are FALSE. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gee, that's odd, somewhere else on here you said "Googlebooks was flawed" [as a tool to decide this], no? You can't have it both ways. The way I work is called WP:COMMONSENSE and that's in massively short supply in Wikipedia discussions. That this is controversial is by now without doubt at all, and that is one very good reason for you MOSites to stop enforcing "your" ("Wikipedia"'s) agenda towards these titles. And why Googlebooks and not GoogleNews? Seems to me that six of one half dozen of the other is not a valid reason to conduct such lengthy controversial RMs when there seems to be little work being done by any of the name-changers on the articles themselves.Skookum1 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not quote what I actually said instead of making stuff up? In any case, the stats are just stats; yes, they refute the extrapolation hypothesis that some rely on, but we still have to use common sense and decide. In my book, it's common sense to follow the MOS:CAPS guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at two of your examples, the fifth from the bottom is in its tenth edition (old book), the fourth from the bottom is a page of references not the book itself (references, one lowercase listed, one uppercase, not lc as you list it). Will keep looking. Randy Kryn 4:46 14 January, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't modify the URLs to take you to the pages where seeing the use in a sentence was easiest, like on that fourth from the bottom. Typically by clicking the "view all" link you can find the pages to look at. I agree, the list of references is not where you need to be looking. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Where you need to be looking is WP:COMMONSENSE and note edit comment about numerical analysis=machine thinking and note, again, that this whole agenda is clearly controversial and has serious and repeated opposition that is not idle or ill-founded; as such, you fielding all these endless rigid MOS claims and interpretations of some is an ongoing disruption. Do you ever edit any of the articles you're changing titles on and defying anybody who says 'boo' against you with endless qualifications based on your own interpretations of googlestats and other mumbo-jumbo?Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And by throwing more mixed-results sections into the talk, which assures that the patience of editors has to be quite practiced in order to get past all the talk and to see that the consensus is actually going heavily in favor of capitalization, also ignores the template at the top of the discussion, which instructs editors to only use only use this one section, a section which can be summed up by its words "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Capitalization of the Cuban Missile Crisis meets all the criteria called for in the template discussion, and the many discerning editors who've voted and commented below realize this. Randy Kryn 5:23 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

(Dicklyon wouldn't allow me to add to my comment, so here is my full comment, and please change your listings accordingly from "lc" to "uc" on the 3rd from the bottom): I've now looked at six of your "lc" examples, the bottom one is the 7th edition, the 3rd one from the bottom is a link to two upper-case references (not lc, as you say), the 5th from the bottom is in its tenth edition (old book), the seventh from the bottom is in its 43rd edition (very old book, I know a textbook editor, they usually just recycle the old material if it's not about a current event), the 12th from the bottom is the 16th edition (very old book), the 4th from the bottom is a page of references not the book itself (references, one lowercase listed, one uppercase, not lc as you list it), etc. etc. I surmise from that that if I keep looking lots of the lc examples are from old editions which editors don't bother to update to current common usage. Mud in the water seen for what it is. Randy Kryn 6:28 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it was rude to keep modifying what I had already responded to. You need to learn how to look inside the book, as I said before. If by the "3rd from the bottom" you mean this book, then please click where it says "view all" to find the pages that have Cuban missile crisis in the text; e.g. this page or this page or this page. It's lower case in all 3 places where it appears in the text. I mentioned before that I did not modify the URLs of the search hits to go the best pages to see the use in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the 1998 book which you list as 2013 (the 3rd from the bottom). It's copyrighted 1998, if you look a the copyright page. As the 7th from the bottom is copyrighted 1970. As I said, textbook editors don't always or often revise line-by-line in new editions (a good friend of mine is a textbook editor). And your 3rd from the top is copyrighted 1998 (not 2013), your 8th from the top is 1999 (not 2013). Your 10th from the top is Dereliction of Duty (1997 book), which has a Wikipedia page. Notice the 1997 in the page name, not 2011? I'm going to quit looking now. Randy Kryn 7:18 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I've shown your above listing to be both inaccurate and actually listed wrong on occasion. The dates of the books you list, the ones described in my post above and probably others, are simply not the dates of the books. My question: why haven't you struck out and changed the incorrect items? I've done that when I'm wrong, and I find it easy to admit mistakes if I make them. Why do you leave incorrect data so prominently displayed, and the only way people will find out that it's incorrect is to read the entire section - a section which you added in a very prominent spot in this questions, and then aren't correcting, or even answering my last post which contains some legit criticisms. Randy Kryn 15:10 17 January, 2015 (UTC)

History of article capitalization[edit]

  • The topic was capitalized in the lead without discussion here in late 2003.
  • The article was moved to lowercase by consensus in Requested Move discussion in 2012, where it was pointed out the even Britannica, usually a big capitalizer, uses Cuban missile crisis for their article. Dicklyon (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Britannica has 9 edits over the life of the article, and most of those edits list references which capitalize, including the Library of Congress and the BBC. Not a very convincing point in favor of lower-case. Is anyone a member there? Maybe we can ask why it is lower-cased as long as you brought the point up. (your link doesn't work for me) Randy Kryn 23:02 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm going to assume that you are just looking at the ref titles again. You need to open them and read them to see whether they treat it as a proper name, by whether they capitalize it in the text. Keep in mind that out title style is sentence case, so to capitalize we need to have evidence of proper name status; and we avoid caps where unnecessary, which means that if treating it as a proper name is optional, we don't. And your link didn't work for me. But there are thousands of other books accessible online, including many of the refs, so keep looking. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point Eric... consider the following:
1) "The key event in Kennedy's first term was the Cuban Missile Crisis"
2) "The key event in Kennedy's first term was the Cuban missile crisis".
Both of these statements are in sentence case. The difference is that the first presents the the event as a Proper Noun. The second does not. What Dicklyon is saying is that we need to look at how the name of an event is presented in the running text of the sources (in sentences like the ones above). When doing a search for source usage, we need to discount the titles of the sources (books, magazine articles, etc), because those are written usually written in Title Case as a default. We need to look at usage in sentence case text. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean sentence form as "List of characters in Star Wars" over "List of Characters in Star Wars" Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I had not realized that Eric was so confused as to not understand the basic question here. I thought he just didn't like WP style, as opposed to not understanding it. Sorry. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The nine edits in the lifetime of the Britannica page mention websites and one video, not books and magazine articles. So Dicklyon assumed wrong. Randy Kryn 13:54 9 January, 2015 (UTC)
Title are titles; or do you see a relevant difference between website and video titles compared to book and article titles? Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am considering the sentence form and not just titles. I've seen just as much compelling evidence for usage of capitals when used in a sentence. My textbook from Pearson (today I had looked) uses capitalization in the sentences as well. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So tell what textbook you have, and if it's not in Google book search, we can add it as a new data point. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
America: Pathways to the Present Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Editions up through 2005 appear to be included in the Google Books index already, though it's a "no preview" book, so they won't show us the text inside the 2005 version. The 1995 edition used lowercase "Cuban missile crisis" and I'll take your word for it that the 2005 uses upper case, so it is already reflected in the stats. If you have an even newer edition, it is probably not in Google books. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, in the search snippet that I can see in this search, that 2005 edition has "Civil rights movement" in the index without caps. Maybe they have some kind of rationale for which things to capitalize, different from yours and Randy's. I'll pick up a cheap used copy and see what I can learn. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the 2007 edition not the 2005. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Eric, that's a hefty book; I picked both the 2005 and 2007 editions via mail for cheap, to see what Google counted in the 2005, and what they missed (probably) in the 2007. Both have 3 uppercase "Cuban Missile Crisis" in sentences that I can find, and 3 more in section heading, figure heading, and index. So the 2005 book counted for 6 of the uppercase counted in the n-grams already, and the 2007 book probably wasn't counted because they hadn't scanned it yet (as far as we can tell from it not appearing in Google books). Note that if they had chosen to use lowercase in sentence, they probably would still have counted for several uppercase from the headings (maybe not the index); this is typical of the sort of bias and over-counting of caps in Google Books n-grams. By the way, they use lowercase for "civil rights movement" and "Montgomery bus boycott"; these also appear capitalized in headings so get counted for that, too. The fact that they are selective about what to capitalize does give some weight to their choice of uppercase for Cuban Missile Crisis. Nice find. Now if you'll consider what they do with civil rights movement... Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey and discussion[edit]

  • Oppose per the data, in light of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Please voters, look at my nomination above, it covers much more than the ngrams which show capitalization is the strong trend in recent years. I mention the references on the page itself, which also go for capitalization, and search engine results, which go very strongly in favor of capitalization (The JFK Library, U.S. State Department and other government entities, and so many other organizations use capitalization that it's kind of strange to even see it lower-case). Dicklyon, maybe on this one you can do, as I say on your talk page, a debating tactic and take the other side, which can be proven easily, and then argue from that position why it should be either capitalized or not capitalized. How about doing it that way, and assisting, with your talent for digging up data, the 'Oppose' side as well (I'm not good at it, but you are teaching me some of the ways editors can swing support to one side or another). On this one, capitalization seems the way to go. Randy Kryn 22:50 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
      • Randy, I hate to have to do this, but I'm going to repeat my all-caps bold TOTALLY FALSE in reaction to your claim that "the references on the page itself ... also go for capitalization", like the last time you tried to use reference titles to support the idea that sources treat a term as a proper name. You have obviously not opened them and looked at whether or not they treat Cuban missile crisis as a proper name, by how they capitalize it in the text. A few do, but even more don't. I've only worked through refs 1-10 so far, and found only two of them use capitalized "Cuban Missile Crisis" in the text (and only three lower case if I don't triple count refs 8-10, and three don't use it in the text at all). Nobody disagrees that most publishers use a different title style than we do, and capitalize it in titles. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether sources treat it as a proper, and MOST do not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not counting papers and references from the early 1960s (several in the first ten are from that era), those obviously would not capitalize. It's only after time has passed that an event such as the Cuban Missile Crisis earns its historical place in the world's consciousness. Again, common sense. And I did say in my opening nomination that there are still major magazines which don't capitalize the name. But overall, on average for the later years, don't the majority fall into the capitalization category? Seemed so to me, but I encourage everyone who wants to fairly vote on this to make their own investigation (but I would personally not count or consider references from, say, 1962 or the mid-'60s as indicative of the accepted common name of today). Randy Kryn 1:37 9 January, 2015 (UTC)
          • So can you tell us which references you looked at capitalize it? In the first 10 refs, the ones that use lowercase are #4, 1989, #6 2005, and #8-10, 1999. The two that use upper case are #1, 2012 and #3, 2011. The term "Cuban missile crisis" does not appear in the text of refs #2, #5, and #7, though other terms such as "the missile crisis" and "the Caribbean crisis" do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Look at the Cuban missile crisis page itself at Primary sources, Lesson plans and External links. Capitalization abounds. Does Primary sources mean something other than Primary sources? Randy Kryn 6:52 9 January, 2015 (UTC)
              • That's exactly where I was looking (when I responded to your other post about that under SmokeyJoe's support comment below). Where you say "capitalization abounds", are you again only looking at titles? Because capitalization in sentences is the only way to see whether they treat it as a proper name or not. Did you look at any? Find any upper case? I'm sure there are some, and I'm pretty sure I can find more lowercase among them, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you claim there's evidence there, lay it out. I've laid out a ton already, which remains unrefuted by your vague claims. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
                • (I wrote this on Dicklyon's talk page just now, and it seems to fit here too): Í shouldn't be even answering this, given your attitude towards people who oppose you (are you ever going to apologize?). On this particular question, the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is the fact that such major organizations and institutions as the John F. Kennedy Library, the United States State Department, the Library of Congress, and many others weigh in with hundreds of others (found in search engines) in favor of capitalization. Surely capitalization can be shown to be a common name. A proper noun. At what point do you accept that it has become a proper and common name? You see the forest, I see the trees. The tallest and strongest trees in the forest of names - represented by the institutions named above and their equivalents - see that event with enough cohesiveness to think of it as a proper noun. There is no lack of data to back them up on that. Lots of people think of it as a proper noun, maybe a good majority. To many of them seeing it in lower-case looks strange, it just doesn't feel right. To me it doesn't feel right enough that I opened the discussion on the talk page. There aren't many of those you've nominated, that I've seen anyway, that make me feel this way. A few, and I've voted and commented on those, but you probably have moved hundreds that I wouldn't go out of my way to make a fuss. On this one, the Cuban Missile Crisis (just look at how it looks the other way: Cuban missile crisis, what a weak name in comparison. Man, that was a Crisis with a capital C. We almost lost civilization and the lives of millions of people on that one. It certainly isn't a lower-case wannabe by any means). So, that's how it made me feel, and then I noticed that there is plenty of data to show that it's seen by lots of others as a proper name, and so my nomination. That's why I point out places to poke around for voters, I don't think we have to be in a prosecuting attorney mode and lay out the entire case, pointing the way for competent readers (most good wikipedians will look into the question themselves once enough links have been pointed to, they click and explore themselves, on both sides of a question such as this. I've said a couple of times, such good magazines such as The Atlantic and Foreign Policy use lower-case, and the New York Times uses it in a majority of its mentions but not in all, so is inconsistent). So yes, the lower-case adherents can make a good case that lower-case is one of the ways the name is treated. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of this one (don't you think so?), but I, along with other editors, think the John F. Kennedy Library, Library of Congress, National Archives, and the U.S. State Department have it right. I'll post this on the talk page as well, just wanted to explain how I look at the question. Randy Kryn 2:15 11 January, 2015 (UTC)
                  • Randy, I don't want to play your game of naming sources and arguing over which are more prestigious; plenty of good sources use lowercase, too (like the Britannica as previously pointed out); many of the docs at State and at LOC use lowercase, too. And I have no objection to those organizations that see it as and treat it as a proper name -- of course they "have it right" as you say. But WP favors lowercase when there's a choice, and in all the cases we're discussing, especially the Cuban missile crisis, lowercase is at least as common in sources as uppercase is, so WP style says we use lower. This does not diminish the stature of the event, nor of the organizations whose styles capitalize them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The 2003 version (although its visual look was different) uses correct capitalization in headings and in its use of the term Cuban missile crisis. I have actually seen this lower cased in a textbook before, but that textbook was hated by my teachers plus the other textbook I had capitalized it so... And since when is Google Books/n books/or whatever it is called the almighty dictator of correctness? This statistic resource is most definitely limited. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Google Ngram Viewer is actually a pretty fantastic tool. It doesn't prove anything. But it is drawn from a huge body of reliable sources, and is about the best starting point we have for seeing how sources present a name or phrase. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Eric, if you're suggesting that "Soviet Strategy" as used in the 2003 heading was "correct capitalization in headings", perhaps you are still ignorant of WP style, as in MOS:HEADCAPS. I'm not sure if that was in effect in 2003, but I'm pretty sure that the random mix of caps in the article at that time was not consistent with any style, in spite of whatever may have been the intentions of the guy who changed the case of the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Meh I didn't see that bit but yeah that was wrong. I am familiar with our guidelines and what not. I know where exceptions are, however, and you ignore it.. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Once the headings and titles are removed from the search the results are not convincing, and it was a close call anyway, one that would not have presented us with an obvious decision. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Looking back at the 2012 RM discussion, I'm actually pretty shocked that it was moved. Seems like a clear no consensus - or if anything, consensus to keep lowercase. That being said, I remain convinced that either upper- or lowercase is acceptable. Dicklyon's ngrams show that there is a strong trend towards uppercasing that has likely continued beyond 2008. Sources of today are probably majority uppercasers for this historical event. It's close enough, though, that the current title is acceptable. I would (and did!) !vote the same if the tables were turned. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I know! The 2012 vote seems very much like a no consensus, so closing it down on the lower-case side confused me as well. And the rest of your post seems to be in favor of capitalization as well, except for the word 'oppose'. You actually make a good case for this nomination to succeed. Randy Kryn 22:54 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
      It could really go either way. I don't think there's enough evidence to push it one way or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think anyone who is "convinced that either upper- or lowercase is acceptable" is acknowledging that capitalization is not "necessary". Hence per MOS:CAPS WP style is to use lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" is a pretty meaningless statement in itself. Capitalization is necessary when we decide it is. More helpful is the third sentence of MOSCAPS, which gives actual guidance on when to capitalize: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Of course, "consistently capitalized" is also capable of differing interpretations. It can mean nearly 100%, or it can mean a healthy majority. Dohn joe (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        Right, somewhere between healthy majority and 100% is the threshold; we leave that open. But in this case it's not even a majority, so the question of what's the threshold need not come up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        Well, it wasn't quite a majority in 2008. The clear trend through 2008 would suggest that now, seven years later, it likely is a majority - and possibly even a healthy majority - using uppercase. Just not quite certain enough of one for me to !support the RM. I wish Ngrams would bring its results current! Dohn joe (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make common sense, if the upper case is used more often, why not upper case it? Why the insistence to keep it in lower case, even against the facts? And can you or someone do a ping on the people who voted in 2012 alerting them of this vote (I don't know how that's done, do we just leave a note on their talk pages?). Thanks. Randy Kryn 23:14 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
          • Against what facts? Fewer than half of sources treat it as a proper name, according to everyting I can see. And the style guideline and title policy are what you seem to be arguing with now. Take it up at the WP:MOS and/or WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It would seem that as the event has changed from current affairs to historic, the descriptive name has transitioned to a proper name. If there were another Cuban missile crisis tomorrow, it would surely not be simply called "a Cuban missile crisis" because there was one great well known Cuban Missile Crisis. The ngram trend and numbers are enough to overcome the recentism of the change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Seeing the graph shows no sign of drop in the capitalization since 1962 and hasn't been used in the lower case form in most cases since 1986 (actually has dropped) it seems appropriate that capital letters should be used. Per WP:Dicklyonpolicies Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Off topic, but what a nice username. A namesake, Smokey Joe Wood, was one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history, and one of the nicest guys to communicate with back when I was collecting baseball autographs. OK, I'll keep this off topic post short, but yeah, cool. Randy Kryn 2:38 9 January, 2015 (UTC)
Smokey, take a look at the data section for more detailed n-gram data and analysis. This "transition" has not happened, and we are not in the business of forecasting trends. We follow, not lead, based on evidence in sources. To some extent, we may have inadvertantly led to capitalizing it during 2003-2012, but still usage in text, as far as we can tell, is majority lowercase. Even when/if it becomes majority uppercase, that is far from meeting the intended style criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources". Again, please review the data carefully, in the data section above, as the broad n-gram view that you and Randy both linked is not telling the whole story. If you're still in doubt, sample some recent books and you'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You are a strange duck. The ngram I linked was from you, from the other page, it was your own link. You are now criticizing myself and Smokey (yes, Smokey dared to vote against you, and here you are pushing at his vote) for a link that you yourself provided. "The usage in text, as far as the evidence shows is..." majority upper-case. Majority upper-case in search engines, in common use, in the references on the page (if you discount the early references from the '60s and '70s), and in your own ngram. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the proper name of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oh, but so sorry, it's not universal, it's not 'consistent', so you trot out Wikipedia policies which aren't policies, try to muddy the water with shifting of the goal posts, and loading up this nomination with a data section that few will read but some will think is impressive from the mere size of it. "...we may have inadvertently led to capitalizing it from 2003-2012, but still usage in text, as far as we can tell, is majority lowercase". No, it is not, and the proper name of the page from 2003 to 2012, followed by a very questionable decision in 2012 when obviously consensus for the move had not been reached, have brought us to a point where Wikipedia is out of step with the proper and common name. Google the term. Bing the term. Give a call to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, to the U.S. Department of State, to the National Archives, to the Library of Congress where the name is capitalized. Look at the Cuban missile crisis page itself at Primary sources, Lesson plans and External links. It is now, and will likely be known in the future, as the Cuban Missile Crisis, eventually by almost everyone except for Wikipedia. That's the obvious trend, even with the burden of the Wikipedia mistake in 2012, and it's becoming more obvious since then. When - and how much evidence is needed for it to happen - will Wikipedia correct that mistake? This time? Next? I know that once the decision was made to lower-case it the burden of proof falls on the people attempting to reverse that decision, and that's sure not easy to do, unless the very few people who will know that this vote is taking place actually take the time to research it. EDIT: Actually, the editor who posted this on the page where page move requests are made may have done it wrong, as the template doesn't seem to link to an entry. Can you, or someone, fix it? Thanks. Randy Kryn 5:32 9 January, 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the n-gram link. I thanked you for posting it, and discussed it in the data section above. But there's more to the story there, too, and Smokey sounds like he missed it, since he re-posted the too-general counts link only. The data are clear: good sources use lowercase more than uppercase, at least through 2008 where we have data. And guidelines are clear, such that even if uppercase is the majority, we would stick with lowercase until and unless capitalization becomes at least sort of close to "consistent" in good sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it appears to have become a proper noun instead of a descriptive phrase for this event, per evidence already given here, in the aboves. -- (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – A clear example of a proper name. We are not referring to a "Cuban missile crisis", but the specific "Cuban Missile Crisis". It is quite simple, per Smokeyjoe. The 2012 move seems as if it was off. RGloucester 07:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nobody thinks there is any other Cuban missile crisis. So the majority lowercase usage in sources clearly refers to the one that is the topic of this article. That is evidence that we should choose lowercase, per MOS:CAPS, not the opposite as you seem to be claiming. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      @Dicklyon MOS:CAPS does not cover article titles and linking to that is confusing. The article title policy section to which you need to link is at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It states "Use lowercase, except for proper names". -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually the template above used to designate this type of request links to this section and says to use that section for discussion, which seems to give a request such as this much more leeway. And the question on these type of titles boils down to 'is it a proper name', which could mean that even if everyone doesn't use it as a proper name, if enough major institutions and sources use it as such, then it can be considered one. At least that's how I read it, and one way it can be read. Randy Kryn 14:29 10 January, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - looking at the evidence presented (both in terms of quantity of source usage, and quality of sources), the trend seems clear... this is one of those cases where the name of the event has morphed into being a proper name. Twenty years ago it wasn't ... but today it is. All the evidence points to the fact that modern sources consider it a proper name. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ??? What evidence shows that? Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per UCRN GregKaye 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There's nothing in WP:UCRN about capitalization, and also no evidence anywhere that uppercase is more common than lower in sources, so your rationale is not making sense here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a proper noun Red Slash 19:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a proper noun, as this chart shows [5]. -- Calidum 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you'll look at the Data section above, where that "chart" was analyzed among others, you'll understand that what you're saying is not supported by the evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Dicklyon, you have to remember that the ngrams you'll downgrading, all of which show the trend to capitalization picking up and growing - and the trend to lower-case falling accordingly - end at 2008, at least six years ago. I know you cite 'crystal ball', but I think that assuming that the trends that we see in all the ngrams on this question have likely continued (added to all the other pro-capitalization evidence) merits consideration. And can you or someone please fix the template at the top of this discussion, which seems to not be taking. Thanks. That said, yay Buckeyes. Randy Kryn 6:27 13 January, 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in evidence about such a trend continuing, and the only plausible reason to think it might would be if more modern books are influenced by the capitalization they see on Wikipedia, which we've had uppercase since 2003. And I'm not "downgrading" anything. The evidence is what it is; it just needs to be interpreted carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No ngrams evidence since 2008, except all the lines were going up for uppercase and going down for lowercase. It was uppercase on Wikipedia from 2003 to 2012 (not 'since' 2003), and the closing of the lowercase vote in 2012 seems, as pointed out above by others, quite possibly an incorrect verdict. By the way, has anyone alerted the voters from 2012 that a new vote is occurring? I haven't, and don't know if anyone else has. That's normal in these situations, yes? (EDIT: I dropped a note off at the former voters' talk page, with a hopefully neutral wording.) Randy Kryn 18:38 13 January, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Again we seem to have lost sight of the grammatical purpose of capitalisation in English. The scope of this article is a particular incident, rather than an overview of all incidents that could be described by the phrase Cuban missile crisis. This is exactly what capitalisation flags in English. That is also the distinction being made by grammarians when they talk of proper nouns, but use of this technical term just seems to confuse people. It's really quite simple. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support to comport with other singular events with well established names like Vietnam War and Battle of the Bulge. Powers T 19:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Randy Kryn and LtPowers and countless other examples I've already mentioned on the Talk:Pullman Strike RM......And I re-submit, as there, that MOS needs to be reformed, and has to stop being used as an ironclad Holy Writ defended by guard dogs against any rational discussion. Wikipedia's influence on the English language is too great for this to be not an inconsequential trend/usage. Bowdlerizing and downgrading events by de-capitalizing is not valid; and title case is relevant; if sentence case was adopted so things would "look better" that's also invalid, because Winnipeg general strike and Oka crisis and October crisis look just damned odd.Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as it is a proper noun and title of an event. As a school teacher might tell you: it names a specific item/event. 2) Further, it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it is placed in a sentence. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dicklyon's cogent survey and argument. By MOSCAPS, for this title to be capped, it would need to be shown that usage is not inconsistent. Clearly it is inconsistent, with a large proportion uncapped. Our house style, then, prevails. And Randy Kryn, it's not a "vote". Tony (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree concerning Dicklyon's survey and argument's cogency. Instead, I see detail and complexity beyond what ngram data should be used for. "It is inconsistent, with a large proportion uncapped" - yes. Do we default to uncapped? Or should we editorially decide whether the term is (is now) a proper name or not. On this last question, I find Powers !vote persuasive, but would be very interested to read further comment on whether the term is or is not a proper name for a singular event. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If I may, I believe Dicklyon and Tony are of the opinion that when any significant number of sources fail to treat an item as a proper noun, then the question is unsettled and we should default to sentence case. There's nothing wrong with that view as far as it goes (we do need a metric by which we can decide, when usage is split), but in many cases (such as this one), it runs up against what most people see as standard convention. There has to be a reason why so many editors think of items like the Cuban Missile Crisis as proper nouns. Powers T 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Rwandan Genocide, Finnish Civil War, Moscow Trials, Cuban Missile Crisis... all these things could be argued to be simply a location or demonym followed by a description of an event, but they have also assumed the status of proper nouns to describe the incident concerned. To the extent that nobody ever refers to it as a "missile crisis that occurred in Cuba", it is always "Cuban Missile Crisis".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose—The evidence here seems pretty clear. When the bulk of sources write something in lc, we can conclude that it is at least correct to write the phrase in lc – I'm not saying uc isn't also a correct alternative – and therefore our style is to use lc. This business of analyzing trends up until 2008 and projecting since then seems totally whacky and inappropriate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Hi. What evidence? What bulk of sources are lc? Please read the entire discussion, I don't know where you are getting the "bulk of source" data which hasn't gone unchallenged and shown to be flawed. As for style, the entire discussion should be, as the template says, on one particular section of the titling page which, as a guideline and not a policy, doesn't overly weigh lower-casing something just because some people used to, but goes more to the common sense approaches. Bottom line, is the Cuban Missile Crisis a proper noun for a single event? Seems to be accepted as such by a great many people, books, and major American institutions. Randy Kryn 15:20 17 January, 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

“Primary sources”?[edit]

What does the title of § Primary sources mean in this article? WP:PRIMARY doesn’t seem to fit, and if something else is meant here, that seems confusing. Can that section be renamed? — (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Change the heading of § Primary sources. (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of those do seem to be collections of primary documents. If some are not, they can be moved. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

DEFCON-2: Standing on the Brink of Nuclear War during the Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

by Norman Polmar and John D. Gresham, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015[edit]

Please add to the section: 'Further reading' this new book on the subject: Campus, Leonardo (2014). I sei giorni che sconvolsero il mondo. La crisi dei missili di Cuba e le sue percezioni internazionali. Firenze, Le Monnier ISBN 9788800745321

Also, please add to the section: 'Historiography' these two new articles on the subject:

Campus, Leonardo (2015). Missile have no colour. African Americans' reactions to the Cuban missile crisis. Cold War History (15), 1 Fardella, Enrico Maria (2015) Mao Zedong and the 1962 Cuban missile crisis Cold War History (15), 1

Cubangeek (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

How can I establish a consensus? I'm not familiar at all with this process, I checked the wikipedia voice for "CONSENSUS" but couldn't figure out what to do in this case (which it's just bibliography, btw). Can someone advice me on whta to do concretely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a question should Admiral Horacio Rivero be listed as an American commander due to his role as the direct commander of the blockade forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In media section[edit]

I think that we should remove the entire In media section for the following reasons: It is entirely unsourced. It doesn't do what In popular culture sections are supposed to do (explain the subject's impact on popular culture). It is poorly written (simply listing appearances). Its entries are trivial (due to the lack of context, each items relative importance is susceptible to undue weight).

I had tagged the section with Template:In popular culture but user @Nikkimaria: removed the tag after removing some of the unsourced entries. However, I think the above-mentioned problems still persist. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It's too important to leave out the media representation of the events in both fictional and documentary form. I provided some citations. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia policy allows brief, noncontroversial summaries of TV shows or films cited not to some third party source, but to the show or film itself. WP:SELFSOURCE Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is true (the relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY). Sources aside, I think the entire section offers no encyclopedic value whatsoever and should be removed on that basis. If one wants to include media representations, there are better ways to do it than listing appearances. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Historians study the memory of great events. Indeed this article is an example of that. That makes it encyclopedic, as the RS in footnotes 109-112 demonstrate. Finnusertop seems to think otherwise, but he offers no support for his argument, and no reliable sources that support his curious position. Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I agree with media representations being relevant. And the first part of the section is now in laudable condition - thank you for improving it up to standard. My concern about unencyclopedic material was (and is) the embedded list of "Representative programs". Prose articles should use prose (WP:USEPROSE). A list of shows does not add anything encyclopedic to what's already stated as "The American popular media, especially television, made heavy use of the events of the missile crisis and both fictional and documentary forms." If we want to include the names of these shows, their significance should be discussed in the section. Such discussion, of course, needs to be reliably sourced. In fact, it's original research to call call this list "representative" if we are unable to present sources that describe them as such. My opinion is that we should remove the list, unless someone wants to properly incorporate its entries in the section. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It's in prose--no numbers or graphs. The items lead interested people to Wiki articles they can read. The list meets the Wiki standards--there is no OR or unsupported claim. To meet your objections I changed the header from "Representative programs" to "Media representations". Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Please see WP:USEPROSE for the definition of prose used here; prose is opposed to lists, not to figures or graphs.
While you are right about lists having the merit of being easily navigable, this can't be the only justification for including a list (otherwise, all articles would consists of endless lists of related topics; that is why we have categories, standard appendices, and standalone list articles). The primary justification with inclusion of any kind if of information in a body section is encyclopedic value, and I just don't see any in this list. Now it's simply and indiscriminate directory of things on TV set in this period. That Call of Duty: Black Ops, The Kennedys, X-Men: First Class etc. are set in the period speaks nothing about their relative importance to the subject at hand: memory of the crisis in (popular) culture.
Since I can see that the two of us are at odds with this, it would be helpful to get other editors' opinion on whether to keep this embedded list as it is, (partially) integrate it into the section as prose, or remove it. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This is primarily a prose article, with a list representing a minor feature. It therefore exactly fits the Wikipedia criteria "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists." The list is not "indiscriminate" -- It was not randomly selected. These are notable items selected (by other editors, not me) to match the needs of the article and the reader. Please note that every one of the items in the list has been judged to be notable by inclusion in Wikipedia. That would be totally impossible in an indiscriminate list. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not the definition of indiscriminate I or Wikipedia uses. Indiscriminate here means "without care or making distinctions", not random (WP:DISCRIMINATE, see also WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The list's inclusion criteria is precisely such: it's a list of media representation of the crisis with no further refinement. That editors make the call is not an excuse for not having to define inclusion - on the contrary, it's precisely the reason why we need to. Are all new Wikipedia articles notable because they were created by editors? No, a great deal of them get deleted. Now, the inclusion criteria within articles is different (WP:NNC). Contrary to what you say, entries do not have to have articles on Wikipedia (thus meeting notability) (WP:FAQ). This only makes it more important to define inclusion. My best bet is still that we should find sources that discuss these entries as exemplary memories of the crisis, and discuss it here within context (the how, why and when they are relevant). Do Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) or any other editors have an opinion concerning this? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. It might make sense to include things like Thirteen Days, although that could also be a Further reading entry; it makes far less sense to include anything that happens to be set in this period. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1) the essay WP:DISCRIMINATE says an indiscriminate collection of information would be a collection of information gathered "without care or making distinctions" or in a "thoughtless" manner. that certainly does not apply here. Every item is thoughtfully related to the topic in a major way. It was not "random." 2) The WP:INDISCRIMINATE rule applies only to articles as a whole. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, ... should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage. 3) the suggestion that a list MUST be copied from a RS is not a wikipedia rule, is not the general practice, and is not a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Political game theory[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_game_theory. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Pointless soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The result should be changed to Soviet victory. The Soviets only wanted the US missiles removed from Italy and Turkey. ( (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

No, not what the WP:RS sources state and, for example, if what you state was correct Khrushchev's fall from power two years later would not have occurred as it did. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Kruschev was removed from power two years later for reasons that had nothing to do with his great victory in Cuba. The crisis was by far the worst defeat the United States had ever suffered prior to Vietnam. It is widely believed Kennedy was assassinated because he had lost the Cuban Missile Crisis so badly. ( (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

Sourcing based on family history[edit]

I have deleted the following (twice):

"On the night of 10-19-1962 at 23:56 a helicopter from USS Essex CVS-9 squadron HSS-2 crashed into the Gulf of Mexico. Lt. Cmdr. James Robert Hughes and AM-3 George Blythe perished. Their bodies were never recovered. On October 22 1962 a second helicopter crashed into the Gulf, that also was from HSS-2 stationed on the Essex. Lost that night were Lt. Cmdr. Witkowski and Enlisted Serviceman 50 AZ Murphy. The details of the deaths of October 19, 1962 have never been provided to the families affected. There are numerous rumors that exist from bad storms, Soviet interference with the flight, or a one way suicide recon mission."[1]

  1. ^ personal history from crew family

Anybody have properly sourced info that indicates this is related to the topic of the article? Just the fact that the material itself declares there is apparently nothing but rumors casts doubts on including the info. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)