Talk:McNamara fallacy

Source?

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

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

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

Better example

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

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

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

Bicycle weight?

Bicycle_performance#Reduction_of_weight_and_rotating_mass.

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

Definition

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

This statement is awkward. Better wording might include:

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

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