![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Sections in this article should be either decade-based or topic-based, but not a combination of both; sub-sections would also make it easier to navigate. The lead section should also be rewritten in some way to reduce its length and redistribute its content to the relevant sections, but I eventually opted for the “cleanup reorganize” maintenance tag instead of “lead rewrite” or “lead too long.” Nemoschool ( talk) 04:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This article handles what many academics (H. Bruce Franklin, Susan Keating) and The Kerry Committee to be more or less a conspiracy theory. At no point in the article does it cite the core critics that the MIA POW issue has been false from the beginning. The language is overly positive about POW MIA groups and supportive journalists. Nearly all of the discussion of the Kerry Committee has been to paint it as a conspiracy itself, while downplaying its conclusions.
Many of the headings are problematic. The "Effects on Popular Culture" can likely be shortened and moved to the end of the article. Honestly is Rambo very important for this serious issue? "Normalization with Vietnam" is loaded with unproven theories about the dishonestly of the Kerry Committee, which frankly could just be shortened considerably and appended on the Kerry Committee heading. "Diminished in Impact But Not Gone" is overly sentimental to a hourly contested issue. "Continued Accounting" just makes this article overly long.
I think a good point is agreement is that criticism of this debated issue should take (relatively) the same amount of space, "Criticism" deserves its own heading, and overly praising language like "who had won a Pulitzer Prize in the 1970..." needs to be removed.
I apologize for any typing errors (I'm on mobile). Rest assured, this isn't a fly by tagging and I will continue to help update this page. Stix1776 ( talk) 16:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It's been a month since the tag went on, with no further edits or comments from the tagger. Accordingly I'm taking the tag off. Of course improvements to the article are always welcome. And I am being more vigilant in terms of seeing that unsupported and fringe IP edits get reverted. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A paragraph in the origins section says
"During the late 1970s and 1980s, the friends and relatives of unaccounted-for U.S. personnel became politically active, requesting the United States government reveal what steps were taken to follow up on intelligence regarding last-known-alive MIAs and POWs. When initial inquiries revealed important information had not been pursued, many families and their supporters asked for the public release of POW/MIA records and called for an investigation"
But no source is cited. It seems important to have some sourcing on this part because whether the US pursued usable intelligence about POWs post Vietnam War is a pretty central conflict in the POW/MIA movement. Am I ok putting a citation needed note on the paragraph?
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Sections in this article should be either decade-based or topic-based, but not a combination of both; sub-sections would also make it easier to navigate. The lead section should also be rewritten in some way to reduce its length and redistribute its content to the relevant sections, but I eventually opted for the “cleanup reorganize” maintenance tag instead of “lead rewrite” or “lead too long.” Nemoschool ( talk) 04:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This article handles what many academics (H. Bruce Franklin, Susan Keating) and The Kerry Committee to be more or less a conspiracy theory. At no point in the article does it cite the core critics that the MIA POW issue has been false from the beginning. The language is overly positive about POW MIA groups and supportive journalists. Nearly all of the discussion of the Kerry Committee has been to paint it as a conspiracy itself, while downplaying its conclusions.
Many of the headings are problematic. The "Effects on Popular Culture" can likely be shortened and moved to the end of the article. Honestly is Rambo very important for this serious issue? "Normalization with Vietnam" is loaded with unproven theories about the dishonestly of the Kerry Committee, which frankly could just be shortened considerably and appended on the Kerry Committee heading. "Diminished in Impact But Not Gone" is overly sentimental to a hourly contested issue. "Continued Accounting" just makes this article overly long.
I think a good point is agreement is that criticism of this debated issue should take (relatively) the same amount of space, "Criticism" deserves its own heading, and overly praising language like "who had won a Pulitzer Prize in the 1970..." needs to be removed.
I apologize for any typing errors (I'm on mobile). Rest assured, this isn't a fly by tagging and I will continue to help update this page. Stix1776 ( talk) 16:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It's been a month since the tag went on, with no further edits or comments from the tagger. Accordingly I'm taking the tag off. Of course improvements to the article are always welcome. And I am being more vigilant in terms of seeing that unsupported and fringe IP edits get reverted. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A paragraph in the origins section says
"During the late 1970s and 1980s, the friends and relatives of unaccounted-for U.S. personnel became politically active, requesting the United States government reveal what steps were taken to follow up on intelligence regarding last-known-alive MIAs and POWs. When initial inquiries revealed important information had not been pursued, many families and their supporters asked for the public release of POW/MIA records and called for an investigation"
But no source is cited. It seems important to have some sourcing on this part because whether the US pursued usable intelligence about POWs post Vietnam War is a pretty central conflict in the POW/MIA movement. Am I ok putting a citation needed note on the paragraph?