Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis/Archive 3

Requested move 8 January 2015

 * 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 crisis → Cuban Missile Crisis – Nomination 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results show capitalization, with Wikipedia's entry beginning to stand out as a listing which maybe now has become out-of-date).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)

Data
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:
 * – the one you linked, showing that overall, capitalization was in a minority but has slowly increased over time, up to about 60% in 2008.
 * – 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).
 * – 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 History.com uses capitalization • 2 Atomic Archive uses capitalization • 3 JFK Presidential Library and Museum uses capitalization • 4 US Department of State uses capitalization • 5 US-History.com uses capitalization • 6 encyclopedia.com uses capitalization • 7 archives.gov 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
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: ; 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.):


 * 2014 l.c.


 * 2012 u.c.


 * 2013 l.c.


 * 2013 mostly u.c.


 * 2013 u.c.


 * 2014 u.c.


 * 2010 u.c.


 * 2013 l.c.


 * 2012 can't tell


 * 2011 l.c.


 * 2013 l.c.


 * 2011 mixed


 * 2012 mixed; mostly u.c.


 * 2013 l.c.


 * 2013 u.c.


 * 2011 u.c.


 * 2011 l.c.


 * 2015 l.c.


 * 2012 l.c.


 * 2013 u.c.


 * 2012 l.c.


 * 2012 l.c.


 * 2013 l.c.


 * 2012 l.c.


 * 2013 l.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

 * 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)
 * Sentence case doesn't mean altering proper nouns it means like "List of characters in Star Wars" etc. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 12:39, 9 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

 * 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 [ http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Sets-Missiles-Account-Missile-Crisis/dp/1288236174 #1, 2012] and [ http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-1961-Kennedy-Khrushchev-Dangerous/dp/0425245942 #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)
 * They aren't fucking policies get it through your damn mind! Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. I agree.  Even WP:LOWERCASE, which is on a policy page, is not a fucking policy.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's policy, but the policy is related to capitalizing proper names, and people who see these things as proper names - Cuban Missile Crisis seems to me to be a proper name - adhere to that policy. As for fucking policy, please see WP:KAMASUTRA. Randy Kryn 1:42 9 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. -- 65.94.40.137 (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 "". -- 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 . -- 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". &mdash; 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 &#124; 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.

DEFCON-2: Standing on the Brink of Nuclear War during the Cuban Missile Crisis
by Norman Polmar and John D. Gresham, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.201.152 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In media section
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 removed the tag after removing some of the unsourced entries. However, I think the above-mentioned problems still persist. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; 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 &#124; guestbook &#124; 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)
 * 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 &#124; guestbook &#124; 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)
 * 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 &#124; guestbook &#124; 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 or any other editors have an opinion concerning this? Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015
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.''http://www.mondadorieducation.it/libro/leonardo-campus/i-sei-giorni-che-sconvolsero-il-mondo/120900042793 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.''http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14682745.2014.904291#.VS_cWfmsV8F 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 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 2.227.186.156 (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 68.191.48.254 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Result
The result should be changed to Soviet victory. The Soviets only wanted the US missiles removed from Italy and Turkey. (165.120.184.247 (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. (165.120.184.247 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

Inconsistency About Cuba's Position

 * 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? 82.83.144.137 (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 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017
Under 'Earlier US Actions, Paragraph 3' change the word 'confirmed' to 'strengthened' in "In addition, Khrushchev's impression of Kennedy's weaknesses was confirmed by the President's response during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, particularly to the building of the Berlin Wall." Pyrrothreat (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources for any requested change. ❌ John from Idegon (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for citation after footnote 48
In writing the following and adding it to Wikipedia

On the night of October 19 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. However, the most consistently repeated accounts from on deck witnesses indicate that the helicopter on October 19 was "shot down.

A request for validation or citation of references was made. I am the son of Lt. Cmdr. Hughes. The narration that I inserted comes from varied sources including my Mother and Uncle (Dad's brother), information written in flight logs of my Dad's squadron membors, a photograph of a wreath placed aboard the Essex in lieu of funera (no recovered bodies), and an interview with another citizen who lost a Dad that night. Sincerely, Charlie Hughes

❌ per WP:OR and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As the links here explain, we do not allow what you know or have discovered as a source for an edit. By the very nature of any encyclopedia, everything here must be verifiable to already published reliable sources. My sincere sympathy for the loss of your father, and my utmost admiration of him for his willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in service of his country. God bless you and your family. John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

cubanmissile
the cuban missile crisis1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.184.192 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017
John F. Kennedy considered bombing the Russian ballistic missiles as they were being stored in factories around the island of Cuba. 109.255.92.153 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Your message here doesn't contain an explicit request. "The article should say [this]" or "the article shouldn't say [that]" or something of that nature. We also will need a reliable source because this change could be controversial.  City O f  Silver  17:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Historical Media Speculation
I saw a tv doco in the 90s claiming that Kennedy had ordered the removal of the Turkey "weapons" months before the crisis. The USAF had taken a literal interpretation and covertly removed the warheads, but leaving the missile bodies. This was to keep the Turks happy, while obeying the Presidential order to the letter. It became a matter of confusion for Kennedy during the negotiations as he was under the impression that the missiles were gone from Turkey. Is there a direct statement from Kennedy during the crisis disproving this assertion? This kind of literal disobedience had been seen before. Eisenhower ordered no more USAF U2 flights over Russia. The U2s' star and stripes were over painted with British rondels, and the flights continued.203.220.105.67 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Stevenson-Zorin confrontation
All the article currently says on the topic is: "The US requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on October 25. US Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson confronted Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin in an emergency meeting of the Security Council, challenging him to admit the existence of the missiles. Ambassador Zorin refused to answer." which to me seems too sparse.

For one thing, it seems surprising that the iconic "Don't wait for the translation" quote isn't mentioned. Maybe that particular bit isn't actually important to what happened, or dwelling on it is too Americentric, or whatnot. But I'd still lean towards it deserving inclusion given that "not appearing weak" was so important to leaders of both sides and that Stevenson had previously looked weak and ineffective to both Soviets and Americans in the past and this showed him being willing to be forceful and look like he was playing hardball.

In addition, I definitely think it deserves mention (the Stevenson page itself does a better job of this), that at the emergency UNSC meeting, Stevenson essentially played dumb while letting Zorin strongly imply there were no nuclear missiles in Cuba, not letting on that he had proof. And then only after that, and only after getting forceful with Zorin, did he basically say "Oh haha look I have proof after all" so that Zorin would lose face. I would just edit myself but as I'm just now learning about most of this (which is why I was reading the article here in the first place) I'm not sure if there's some reason I'm missing that this was left out of the article and would rather submit the idea for discussion here first. Statalyzer (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

64 Soviet citizens died?
The sidebar says this but links it to "1962-1964" statistics, and I couldn't find it explained in the article anywhere. What is this? Statalyzer (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have the same question here. The change was made on September 9, and the linked source claims 64 deaths but gives no account or explanation whatsoever for these supposed deaths. And the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't even a shooting conflict, other than the shootdown of the U-2 being piloted by Rudolf Anderson, so those 64 deaths might just be deaths of natural causes which should not be counted in the conflict's infobox. If there were actually 64 combat deaths, that is a significant figure which should have been covered and explained in the article, but there is no such coverage or explanation. As such, I am reverting/removing that unexplained addition. —Lowellian (reply) 15:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

cuban missile
the cuban missile crisis1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.184.192 (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just read the facsimile of a now unclassified paper on a site called 'all governments lie'. It is dated 13 March 1962 and writes about plans having to be developed for overt and covert military action, even a pretext needs to be found. This date suggests that the Soviet missiles were probably more reactive than aggressive than we thought.


 * Somewhere else I had read that Kennedy and Chrustchov then did a deal - no more assassination attempts for Castro and the missiles will go home. Just something to ponder, would fit with reality. 2001:8003:AD40:8400:B47C:957E:6C1B:C271 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing based on family history
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."

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)


 * I agree that rumors and family history do not belong in Wikipedia. If the family history has been documented in a reliable published source WP:RS and it is related to the article, then it may be included. WP is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill, opinion blog or personal memoir. American In Brazil (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help! Footnote 32
I have added further info on Sen. Keating's source for his revelation of Soviet missile bases in Cuba ahead of JFK's public statement on Oct. 22, 1962. The source I found is the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, a very reliable source. However, I am not the most format-savvy Wikipedian and I could not get all the proper info into the citation, though I tried several times. Could someone who is more savvy than I please fill in the cite. The link on the fn will take you to the source. This is an important part of the story which has puzzled and intrigued historians for decades. Thanks for your assistance. American In Brazil (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ JezGrove (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Image
While the image is relevant, I believe the U2 spy plane image of missile bases in Cuba would be better because of its specific relevance to Cuba. What do you guys think? Lokii192 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the main infobox image. Lokii192 (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with article when viewing with iPad app
I don't know if there's a better place to report this, but when I look at this article using the Wikipedia app on my iPad, I get this. If there's a better place to report this, let me know.

Chivalry (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalry (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Instigator of missile placement -- USSR or Cuba?
This edit and this revert caught my eye. The edit summary on the revert ends with "... precise source would help". I don't know whether or not it is helpful, but I did some googling out of personal curiosity and found The second paragraph there says: "Raul Castro was elated when Soviet officials offered in June 1962 to base nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba. On a July 1962 visit to Moscow, [... continues ...]" Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(added) Reading elsewhere in there, I see on page 10: "By May, 1962, Khruschev prevailed upon other Soviet Presidium members to endorse placing regiments equipped with nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba, ...". It goes on a bit later, "By June 1962 the Soviet General Staff had drawn up plans to send nearly 51,000 military personnel to Cuba. The group would include five nuclear missile regiments, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes rejected
As a Pending changes reviewer, I rejected this revision because that IP had the same changes rejected before. I don't know if they are getting those numbers from a citation in the article, but their edit summaries aren't explaining what and why they are changing it. I encourage that user to use this talk page to discuss those changes before proposing them again.  M r A urelius R  Talk! 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warsaw Pact Logo.svg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcfalln.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kikiid369.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakewalters24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
The Yom Kippur War was actually closer to nuclear war. (86.150.124.93 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC))
 * I think you might be mentioning the Dimona area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.107.201 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claim regarding call between JFK and his predecessors
WikiLinuz has my edits due to unexplained removal of content. However, the removal was not unexplained: as I said in, the claim I removed was not supported by the cited reference. This made it unsourced information and hence eligible for bold removal (I believe it's also wrong and hence found no point in trying to look for a non-existent source to back it up). I don't want to get into an edit war and would certainly be willing to discuss more if there's disagreement, but I stand by the change. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As there have been no objections, I'm moving forward with reapplying my changes. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by your reason for removal. The cited video sources indeed support the article text. Please watch the media sources once again, particularly around 0:40 - 0:50. We should conventionally use secondary sources for this kind of stuff, rather than interpreting the original phone calls. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @WikiLinuz: Ah, well then that's a different matter than unexplained removal. I did watch both videos a couple times and consult some of the other already cited secondary sources, but I will watch them again with particular attention to the portions you highlighted and get back to you. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @WikiLinuz: I watched the videos again. Coincidentally, 0:40-0:50 of both videos happens to be about the public Soviet offer linking removal of the missiles in Cuba to the removal of the US missiles in Turkey. While I did remove a direct quote about that (which I had to replace other unsupported, and frankly dubious, claims), the information was still there with  ("he had rejected the public Soviet offer to withdraw from Cuba in exchange for the withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey"). I felt the quote I added was awkward and that specific piece of information was already discussed sufficiently elsewhere in the article, but I admit I could have been clearer about that. As I see it, the only claim I actually removed (as opposed to combining or rewording) was that Kennedy "was planning on using the Soviet setback in Cuba to escalate tensions in Berlin". I still contend that that is unsupported (in fact, there's support for the opposite - he was worried that the setback would escalate tensions). If you think the claim was actually supported (or I removed something else that was), please let me know. 216.211.252.147 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-insert the sentence citing the old source again. The fact that we are trying to interpret the primary phone call hosted by some random YouTube video and arguing over its transcription is by itself a violation of WP:PRIMARY. I believe it's a well-covered subject, so finding a scholarly source wouldn't be that hard. I will try to look for myself meanwhile. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  14:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm still unclear on if we're actually arguing about the content (whether there's evidence that Kennedy intended to use the crisis to escalate the situation in Berlin), but I'm on board with switching to reputable secondary sources either way. I agree that these are not the most reliable of sources, though the Truman conversation uploaded by user "rmm413c" is more questionable than the (still less than ideal) Eisenhower conversation uploaded by the YouTube verified "JFK Library" account. As I mentioned in one of the edit summaries linked above, I've also been considering removing this part altogether since I'm not sure how much it adds to the article. There's another recording of a Kennedy conversation with Herbert Hoover that took place on the same day, but it was much of the same. I personally found it interesting that he was being so diligent in keeping his predecessors abreast of the situation, but is it notable? 216.211.252.147 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add to Nuclear Forces under United States
That ALL Nike Missile sites were on Red Alert during this crisis.

It's very much verifiable.

98.224.129.251 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems deceptive to refer to it as the Cuban missile crisis
Maybe it should be the Turkish Missile Crisis or the US Missile Crisis since there was no crisis until US missiles arrived in Turkey, Italy. Occams ied (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Jupiters were "nearly-obsolete missiles"? I have a few questions.
The basic problem here is that we are claiming in wikipedia's voice that it was and still is a universally acknowledged fact that the Jupiter missiles were obsolete, and further that their obsolescence somehow mitigated the concession of removing them on Kennedy's part, as well as mitigated the provocation represented by deploying them in Italy and Turkey in the first place.

Our cited sources in fact say that not everyone saw it that way, and the chronology and the decisions made by all parties are substantial evidence that they either didn't consider the Jupiters obsolete at all, or if they were for whatever reason inferior to other systems, that wasn't a factor in the significance of their presence in Turkey and Italy. An "obsolete" nuclear missile is still a nuclear missile. And the argument that they were vulnerable to Soviet attack seems irrelevant to their threat as a first strike weapon close to Soviet territory. What difference does that vulnerability make if the Jupiters are already flying? That's what the Soviets said they were worried about. The same concern the US had over Cuba.

We need to rewrite this to attribute the opinion to its source, and to add mention of several significant contrary opinions. Or just delete it, if we can't find a way to make sense of it.

First instance:

...an offer to withdraw what the US knew to be nearly-obsolete missiles from Italy and Turkey, in exchange for the Soviet withdrawal from Cuba. Turkish officials replied that they would "deeply resent" any trade involving the US missile presence in their country

The source cited doesn't make any mention of the Jupiter being obsolete at all. Probably should delete it from here for that reason alone. Our citation here says the opposite, that Turkey believed Jupiters on their soil were "a symbol of the alliance's determination to use atomic weapons" and US Ambassador to Turkey Finletter said there's no substitute, regardless of the Polaris. Sure, the Navy could argue that submarine launched Polaris missiles made the Jupiter obsolete, but then the Navy had been saying that since 1956, and not everyone shared that opinion. To the Turks, the nebulous presence of missiles somewhere out in the ocean somewhere didn't represent a palpable defense of Turkey specifically. The Soviets seem to have agreed.

Second instance Unknown to the Soviets, the US regarded the Jupiter missiles as obsolete and already supplanted by the Polaris nuclear ballistic submarine missiles.

The Polaris was deployed in 1961, and if the Jupiter was supplanted by them, where were the plans to retire the Jupiter in 1961? Or 1962? Or 1963? Had the Cuban missile crisis not happend, as far as we can tell, there were no plans for the Jupiters (or an upgrade replacement) to go anywhere. John T. Correll's opinion at the Air and Space Forces source is that the concession was "no great loss to the United States or NATO", but why John? Why?

Even if the Jupiters were nearing the end of their life, how does that mitigate their role as a bargaining chip? In, START I, the B-52s being retired were at the time considered supplanted by the B-1 for the role of intercontinental nuclear weapons attack. That's kind of the norm in arms reduction, isn't it? Everyone is most willing to give up weapons that they were going to get rid of anyway. In the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Eisenhower had resisted, for over a decade, giving up atmospheric nuclear tests, and only changed his mind after he was given overwhelming evidence that underground tests made them obsolete anyway.'

Why was Kennedy embarrassed to admit he traded away the Jupiter missiles if the Polaris had supplanted them two years earlier anyway? Kennedy acted as if he believed deploy8ing them showed strength and removing them showed weakness, so he covered up the removal. And why was Khrushchev concerned about them, since the first strike threat they represented was, supposedly, supplanted by submarines? Either the Soviets didn't believe the Polaris was as much of a threat as the Jupiters in Turkey, or they were unaware of the capabilities of the Polaris, which means the Polaris was unless for its role as a deterrent.

But then again, the Soviets had pioneered submarine launched missiles, and had deployed them seven years before the Cuban missile crisis. Why didn't those who considered the Jupiters obsoleted by the Polaris also think the 1962 threat from land based missiles in Cuba beside the point, given that the Soviets could have parked a sub off the coast of Washington DC or LA way back in 1956? The US was freaking out over these leaky, dangerous, slow to launch liquid fueled misses 90 miles away. Why wouldn't the Soviets react the same way?

Even if the Jupiter was on the way out, without a deal to remove nuclear missiles from Turkey, it's entirely plausible that they would have simply been replaced with more modern land based missiles, as was done with any other similar weapons system. All the more so because regardless of what (some and only some) Americans thought, both the Turks and the Soviets clearly did think nuclear missiles based on land that close to Soviet territory mattered a great deal, for exactly the same reason that Kennedy did about Soviet land based missiles that close to the US. The fiddy nature of the liquid fueled Jupiter with it's complicated maintenance and elaborate pre-launch preparations would make some sense except the Soviet R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba were liquid fueled too, with many of the same awkward deployment and readiness issues. Nobody slept better because the missiles aimed at them were a nightmare to operate compared to later solid fuel rocket motors.

The whole obsolesce thing seems like a red herring to me, but if we are going to include it we need to add a great deal more explanation of what these critics were thinking. The suggestion that Kennedy bamboozled Khrushchev and that he didn't really give any concessions doesn't hold much water. Neither does the post hoc excuse that deploying the "obsolete" Jupiters in the first place was not a provocation equivalent to deploying missiles in Cuba. Neither the Soviets, nor the Turks, nor the Cubans, or, for that matter, the US, saw it that way.

Anyone is entitled to think this as personal opinion, but few (if any) of the relevant principal actors at the time shared that opinion. Everyone behaved for all the world like they believed the opposite. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've begun to find sources that clarify my questions. Here at The Atlantic is an overview of the broad misconceptions and misinformation about the Cuban Missile Crisis, primarily from a US point of view. For the matter of Jupiter obsolescence, it spells out that there were multiple factions with contradictory opinions about the Jupiter -- and more to the point, about liquid fueled ballistic missiles. Many of these military or political factions were opposed to the Jupiter from the start of development, while others came around because of later developments, like the Polaris.A whole other point of view is that these fragile, unreliable, immobile, and worst, slow to launch missiles were destabilizing. They are easily destroyed by a nuclear aggressor before they can launch. They are still extremely dangerous as a first strike weapon: fuel them in secret, launch a surprise attack. Because of their first strike effectiveness, they incentivize the other side to a pre-emptive first strike, hence they are destabilizing.The counter arguments are of two kinds. One, that Turkey was not the most committed NATO partner, and their loyalty to the West hinged on their faith that they'd be protected from the Soviets. Turkey was one of only three NATO countries that didn't reject the US request to base nuclear missiles there, and in fact they really wanted them. Simply yanking them right back was a delicate matter. After much wrangling the Turkish government secured funding to build and support the missiles there. Those in the US government who wanted to turn around and remove them had no good answer for these Turkish concerns. The Jupiters enhanced Turkish prestige and confidence, and the hypothetical subs with Polaris missiles didn't do that as much. Seeing them in Turkish ports would probably have gone part of the way, but the real kicker was the fact that these deployed Polaris missiles did not exist, and would not exist for many years. Those who argued the Polaris made the Jupiter obsolete *now* were glossing over the fact that the US did not yet have any of them in the Mediterranean. Maybe in the future, sure, but to claim they were there in 1961 or 1962 was patently false. Regardless, some US officials did make that argument anyway.Kennedy did come around to wanting to retire the Jupiters, but the reason he didn't was that he couldn't risk the relationship with Turkey. Not just the risk of offending the Turks, but that they might leave NATO altogether and cultivate their security by building closer ties with the Soviets instead. Cracking the NATO alliance would have been a huge win for the Soviets.I hope this clarifies why it's not a simple question of whether the liquid fueled medium range missiles were "obsolete" or not. It depends on your point of view, and your priorities. Kennedy and others are quoted as saying that the Jupiter was the literal equivalent to the R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba. Equally expensive to maintain, unreliable, dangerous, immobile and vulnerable, and slow to prepare for launch. So those who called the Jupiter "worthless" had to also call the Soviet counterparts worthless. But it is critical to note that the Cuban missiles, too, were good only as a first strike weapon.This, according to Khruschev's later interviews, was the point he was trying to make, giving the Americans "a taste of their own medicine." If first-strike-only missiles in Cuba were intolerable to the US, then why shouldn't the Soviets feel the same?And yet, both sides already had sub launched medium range missiles lurking off each others' coasts. So with or without these land based liquid fueled missiles, either could launch a first strike with impunity. The difference was only that the subs were also of value as a deterrent to a first strike, so could be seen as both stabilizing and destabilizing.Here is an example of several sources I've found that consider the issue even more from a Turkish point of view, and why they needed, politically, to keep the Jupiter. And why the Turkish sense of betrayal when Kennedy secretly agreed to remove them contributed to increased pro-Soviet and pro-communist attitudes in Turkey. There's also a whole body of sources that consider the Cuban point of view, and how, like Turkey, they resented being treated as a pawn of a superpower, a mere client state doing Khruschev's bidding.Our goal then, need to be to convey all this nuance and complexity. We don't have the space to do that justice in this article, but we can at least work to make sure that readers are aware of the existence of all this nuance, and so to reject simplistic formulas like "removing the obsolete Jupiter as good, actually". Easier said than done but that should be the goal of writing this article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Max Hastings, in Abyss: The Cuban Missile Crisis 1962, London, William Collins, 2022, ISBN 978-0-00-836499-1, p.132, has:- 'In August 1962, Kennedy asked if the Jupiter nuclear-armed missiles that had been sited in Turkey since 1959 [sic] could be withdrawn -- he had been told that they were obsolescent and contributed nothing to Western security. Nonetheless a decision was taken to leave the fifteen launchers in place, because of the impact their removal might make upon the confidence of the allies, especially the Turks.' On p.129 Hastings mentions SIOP-63 (Single Integrated Operational Plan for 1963), prepared under Robert S. McNamara at the Pentagon and made public in 1962, which envisaged flexible options for East-West confrontation including, unfortunately, 'a possible pre-emptive strike in response to unequivocal warning of impending Soviet attack.' (A typically disastrous bit of McNamara bureaucracy.) This suggested to the Soviets that the Americans were planning a first strike, and Jupiter, like Thor, was essentially a first-strike weapon, since it was not practical to use in retaliation unless pre-fuelled.
 * The US only fielded Thor and Jupiter as stop-gaps until they obtained genuine ICBMs, but the preparation time of these liquid-fuelled missiles, implying first-strike use, resulted in an unfortunate degree of over-threat to the Soviet mind. Even so, in Hastings' account, Khrushchev was only angry about the Turkish Jupiters, apparently because the thought of them just across the water annoyed him when he was staying at his Crimean villa. Soviet IRBMs were targeted at the Italian Jupiters as well, and the Thors in England, but Khrushchev only got emotional over the Turkish Jupiters, which Kennedy wanted to retire anyway. (Kennedy was probably aware of the undue provocation they offered for reasons of proximity, considering their relative strategic uselessness.)
 * There is little doubt that, in the West, liquid-fuelled IRBMs were regarded as obsolescent. At the time of the Crisis, Britain was still forwarding plans to retire the Thors in 1963 -- the US acquisition of Minuteman and Polaris rendered them redundant and arguably dangerous. As the article does not mention, the RAF put the Thors at T-8 readiness on the afternoon of Black Saturday (shelters withdrawn, missiles erected, fuellers in place), at the same time as the V-bombers were put on RS-05, cockpit readiness, and this was maintained for quite a few hours. (RS-05 was technically five minutes' notice, but in practice scrambles the RAF could get four Vulcans airborne from a given base within 90 seconds of the order to go.) But as far as we know, the Thors were never fuelled and pressurised to T-2 status (ready to launch in two minutes), not least because that alert state could only be held for two hours maximum before the extremely low temperature of the LOX began to freeze and seize the missile's critical components. That is why liquid-fuelled IRBMs were more offensive than defensive, which is why the Americans were so alarmed by the presence of liquid-fuelled Soviet IRBMs in Cuba. Khrushchev imagined that the Americans would accept the missiles as a fait accompli, just as Khrushchev himself had to accept the Turkish Jupiters. In this, he miscalculated, rather badly. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)