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 BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

Sigma I-62 war game[edit]

• ... that 2.5 years before the Tonkin Gulf Incident, the Sigma I-62 war game concluded American intervention in Vietnam would be unsuccessful?

• Reviewed: Bathycrinus aldrichianus
• Comment: The Sigma I-62 war game is the first known instance of a war game predicting America's failure in the Vietnam War. It was staged 2 years before the first U.S. Marines landed at Danang, and 2.5 years before the Tonkin Gulf incident generally accepted as the war's beginning. Despite later similar predictions, the United States still fought the war. As predicted, they lost.
• 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 by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

- Article appears to meet all of the criteria. I would usually assume good faith on articles paper-sources however due to the nature of the subject and having no knowledge of its accuracy, I don't feel I can. If someone can get access to any of the books listed in the references to check the reliability? I might just be being a wimp and others may feel we can AGF?

• New – Article created on the 12th Nov.
• Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters.
• Within policy – The article appears neutral, it has inline citations and I cannot find any copyright violations.
• Hook - It is fewer than 200 characters, it is interesting and the article contains inline citations to evidence its accuracy.
• QPQ – Done.

Interesting article and lots of wiki links - Nice work Georgejdorner! ツStacey (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Request made for second opinion, preferably by someone knowledgeable in the subject area. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  I could do as much of the review as George Stacey has done above but will second his her request that someone actually check the offline sources for something this one. The only topical online source (this report on SIGMA I & II-67) says absolutely nothing except that there was "a game like this" in 1962. That doesn't refute the article but has absolutely nothing about the name, result, scope, &c. of the '62 game, which should be verified. — LlywelynII 13:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wow, it took me weeks to locate the above online source while I was working on the Sigma war games series; I'm impressed. However, as nominator, I am not the one requesting a second review. My cautionary note in the nomination is aimed at preventing false calls of copyvio.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  Don't be too impressed. I just used the one you'd already found from the article. : ) And it is a great source: just not for this article in particular. — LlywelynII 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  Refs #9-11 discuss Sigma I-62. The other refs are there to support the war game background. If it helps: this is ref #10. I could only find snippet views of the other two. Maybe if the nominator could quote some passages, we can go on AGF? Fuebaey (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  "Refs #9-11 discuss Sigma I-62": It's great you found the Google Books link. I included that in the article. That said, no, for something like this that might turn into a Scopes-style urban legend, Stacey and I are saying we should be more careful that we're actually reporting what the sources say. The source you linked, e.g., does not say what the article claimed it was saying: it said (in the game) that winning involved a large enough US involvement that (in the game) the PRC would involve itself and that would require "changing the U.S. political objectives in Vietnam". It is the source of one of the article's quotes (so I moved it to the right place), but that does not say US intervention would be "unsuccessful" and (for a variety of reasons) the game itself was completely wrong about PRC involvement, which passes unnoticed in the article. The snippets I could get from Vietnam-on-the-Potomac for "Sigma I-62" start on 93 (not 92) and say things like "Very little documentation concerning this particular game is available", not "we should have known better ZOMG". Searches for snippets on "unsuccessful" + "game" didn't pan. Searches for any snippets on the game in Back Fire were unsuccessful.
  
  No offense at all to the authors and/or nom, but we really, really should have someone go find these books and not just pass this one on GF. (It's not a "no", though: emended to "again" marks. A section about gameplay reworked from your source could also create viable ALT hooks: ... mistakenly thought US involvement in Vietnam would trigger a Chinese intervention? &c.) — LlywelynII 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  No offense taken. I am presently rechecking my sources, in the interests of accuracy.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Warner reference (#11) establishes the date of the Tonkin Gulf incident. The Ball reference (#10) seems to be the still questionable one. I have access to Ball through Interlibrary Loans, and I am recalling it through ILL to check that cite. I would like to thank all involved for their patience and diligence in this matter.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

While we are awaiting my ILL loan, I propose another hook:

ALT1: . . . that while both the opposing Red and Blue Teams wanted to win the Sigma I-62 war game, neither side wanted to fight?

Please note that approval/disapproval of the above hook will have no relevance to article accuracy; I WILL change any inaccuracies found in the articles I present.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Excerpts from page 93 of Vietnam on the Potomac, paragraphs 2 & 3:

"In February 1962, the game metaphor was enacted in a simulated war game....The game was given the secret code of Sigma I-62...The purpose of the game was to explore various solutions to the Vietnam problem by simulating the different sides of the issue. Critiques of this game and another two played in the Johnson administration predicted failure in any U.S. intervention."

Will this suffice, or do I have to quote more?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Either hook approved, at submitter's preference. — LlywelynII 10:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If it has more and you don't mind adding it, please do. As it stands, with the fuller treatment limiting itself to saying the game shifted the terrain and stakes of the war, it looks like VOP's misreading its source material and overstating the case w/r/t this game. That said, it's not necessary for you to second-guess reliable sources and and it's not our job to police whether you have. He does indeed make that judgment and contemplating a second shooting war with China may indeed have been considered a failure within easy memory of Korea, the problems with M'Arthur, and JFK's uncertainty over his ability to rein in the military. (But that's just bald conjecture on my part. Better if someone actually explained it.) More to the point, I wanna reward anyone who takes the time and trouble to wait for an ILL in this day and age. Good show, sirrah. — LlywelynII 10:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote above leaves out some "filler", but does not mention concerns about Chinese intervention (though that popped up in later Sigma war games). I have no problem with guaranteeing the accuracy of an article. That said, there are so many of these Sigma war games that did come to the conclusion the war couldn't be won, you folks had me wondering if I had perhaps confused things in the writing of them all.

I do prefer my original hook, thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)