Talk:McNamara fallacy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force

Source?[edit]

I would like to point out that the quote was ascribed to Daniel Yankelovich in Smith, p286 already in 1972, (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t533603476714p12/) - should handy really be listed as the source of the quote?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.80.249 (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can just anyone make up logical fallacies or do they need to be documented, and the fact that they're called the names they're called established by a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story I inserted about Lansdale and McNamara is the one I have read for "McNamara's fallacy". It comes from the preface page one of Rufus Phillips' book, Why Vietnam Matters, Naval Institute Press, 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewaller (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better example[edit]

McNamara fallacy has lots of Google hits. Google hits indicate notability. A couple of anonymous users doubt this is an accepted term in any field. What anonymous users say doesn't necessarily indicate lack of notability. Identity of anonymous users cannot be proven. Therefore, the McNamara fallacy is notable. --174.119.182.107 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an example of the Article's subject, that is clever. I must admit that.

So, is this a deletion request? I'm not anonymous, and I would say this is notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle weight?[edit]

Bicycle_performance#Reduction_of_weight_and_rotating_mass.

There's a lot of emphasis on the weight of a bicycle as a measure of its performance, even though it's not particularly important at all. Way easier to measure than wind and rolling resistance, though. Appears to me that that can be another example to add breadth to the article. Yay? Nay? - Richfife (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

The fallacy refers to McNamara's belief as to what led the United States to defeat in the Vietnam War—specifically, his quantification of success in the war (e.g., in terms of enemy body count), ignoring other variables.

This statement is awkward. Better wording might include:

"The fallacy refers to McNamara's early belief as to what would have led the United States to victory in the Vietnam War—specifically, his quantification of success in the war (e.g., in terms of enemy body count), ignoring other variables. The U.S. defeat gave evidence that his belief was a fallacy."

Thoughts?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]