Talk:Missing In Action (American concept)

how about some MIA numbers from Vietnam? Korea?

Attack on Kerry with no Citations
part of this page is being used to attack john kerry. specifically about him shredding documents apparently for diabolical reasons. needs a credible citation to be considered valid

Yes, this page is extremely POV right now. All of the Kerry info needs to be sourced. Also, if one person (i.e., the committee staffer) is asserting that such events took place, the assertions should be properly termed a "claim." I'm close to re-writing sections of this for NPOV and removing unsourced material. Any thoughts? --Patchyreynolds 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made some stylistic improvements, but the essential problem is that the article wants us to believe that veterans Kerry, a Democrat who opposed the Vietnam War, and McCain, a Republican who spent five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese, were for some reason conspiring with each other to keep secret the existence of still-imprisoned Americans. This notion of a Kerry-McCain conspiracy defies common sense, and no proof is offered to support it. (The shredding of "copies" is hardly proof.) The entire article should be rewritten. PhD PhD 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Sept. 7, 2006.

Recommend Renaming Article
The term "POW/MIA" is a far more common term, worldwide, that's used to describe both prisoners of war, those who're missing in action, and the various concerns, legal status, and issues surrounding these two serious events. I strongly recommend a more appropriate POW/MIA page be created, containing a picture of the POW/MIA flag and a description of it's origens, the various issues and concerns, the legal status according to the Laws of War, links, references, etc. Mugaliens 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever is decided, the article should immediately be moved to Missing in action. Capitalization of all three words is bad style. --Lukobe 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely Rewrite and Rename Article
PhD and Mugaliens are both right. This article in its present form is a POV violation of the first order. The entire thing should be re-written from scratch as a discussion of the unique U.S. POW/MIA issue, taking into account both the opinions and beliefs of those who take the possibility seriously, and those of the M.I.A. or Mythmaking In America school of thought (briefly, that the whole thing is a deliberate hoax created by Nixon). --Orange Mike 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is terrible and of no use. As a non-American, however, I would strongly suggest that the US MIA issue/campaign be a seperate article from the term Missing in Action, which is used around the world. --Nick Dowling 10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A Complete Restart Not Necessary
This article is on the right track, it it were just reorganized. In general, other articles start with a background of the history of the term. In this case, when did the designation of MIA begin. The idea was used as long ago as the American Civil War, and surely the concept was known in the Napoleonic wars as many prisoners were taken. However, it is also likely that the designation of MIA was a product of the expected survival or capture of opposition. In Pre-Napoleonic times most wounded soldiers died, and many would be killed rather than taken prisoner. I am not enough of an expert on this to say when the changes took place, but it surely has something to do with MIA as a designation.

I think that the Kerry issue is not germane at all to the overall topic, although may be worthy of exploration. Mentioning Viet-Nam and Korea are not US centric, either, as Korea was a UN sponsored war, and many countries sent soldiers. While less widely supported, British, Australian, and Korean soldiers were also present in South Viet-Nam, as were Chinese, and Soviet soldiers in the North. However, there were many wars that were fought by countries other than the US that bear mentioning, especially those fought by Israel.

214.13.212.180 13:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)1LT 12OCT2006

MIA and POW/MIA and other Comments
Since the material was originally entered at MIA, saying "see MIA" at the definition of "POW/MIA" on Wikipedia seems like a good way to handle any arguments over which term should be used. Maybe someone who knows how could do that. Additionally, perhaps the person who put in all of the "citation needed" entries could set up a dummy entry showing just how he wants it. For example, there is a quote accompanied by date, author, and publication. Yet "citation needed" was inserted after the quote. If the guy insists on a footnote at the bottom of the page, then he could set up a dummy footnote and explain everything he wants in the footnote. In other words, it would be productive if he could show in just one example everything he thinks should be included for one citation. The public knew very little about the MIA issue until after the Vietnam War--maybe that could be added in the introduction. The Kerry Committee was at a pivotal time and it is important that it be covered. However, the issue of what Vietnam did or did not do to account for the missng after the war, and the "leverage" issues of the trade embargo and normalization could certainly be mentioned. Releasing information to the families and the public could be expounded upon - how much information has been released and how much is being withheld? -anon24.131.165.152 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Much Better, Sources have been added.
It looks like good progress has been made regarding sourcing of information. The topic of the release of POW/MIA records should be addressed in more detail. What records have been withheld from POW/MIA families? What does the government say about that?

Since there is such great controversy on this issue, perspectives from opposite sides need to be fairly represented. The following questions could be addressed: What are the key areas of intelligence? Has intelligence been properly pursued? If not, what intelligence needs to be pursued. Have foreign nations been completely honest and forthcoming and revealed all they know?

67.4.128.18 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)ANON