Talk:Rolling Thunder (organization)

message: Since nearly every comment on this page has a  tag after it, I added the  tag to the top. --Horse Badorties 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some unreferenced comments, in keeping with WP:V. I also removed the  tag from the top. --Horse Badorties 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be original research, and is of no use on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. All you can do is quote what the media or the authorities say. If you feel like doing the experiment, more power to you, but just realize it can't go in the article here. Maybe on somebody's blog or a web forum. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for sources

message: Removed the sentence "The organization works to lobby United States government officials to further investigate the possibility of missing POWs and MIAs held in captivity since the Vietnam War as well as from other conflicts." since this sentence already appears, almost verbatim, in the first paragraph. I also added a  tag. I also removed the WTO link, keeping with WP:EL and WP:NPOV. --Horse Badorties 14:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed uncited material. Also removed one redundant clause. Shifted some material up to the first paragraph. --Horse Badorties (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the english language does not allow one to be dedicated to the "search of" something, the first sentance of the article should be edited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.232.157 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to)..  Skomorokh  20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page clean up

message: Good job on this article, GSUKyle. I'd be very interested to see an addition to the article that indicates what successes the group has so far. Have any MIAs been located and/or brought home as a result of this group's efforts?Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thnak you. I will continue searching for exact numbers, however, I have found a list of the bills that have been brought before congress by this organization.  I will be posting that soon.  If you have any other ideas for editing please let me know. thank you Georgiasouthernlynn. GSUkylesmallegan (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What MIAs have been located?

message: "Starting in 1987 and continuing through May 2008 Rolling Thunder has been conducting the “Rolling Thunder Run” which all of its members attend.  For 22 years the members of Rolling Thunder have converged on Washington, D.C to show their continued support for the efforts to find lost service men and women of past conflicts."
Also inaccurate/outdated - 2010 was RT XXIII - I was there and have the patch, so 2008 could not have been 22.  Sentence would probably read better as:
"Begining in 1987 and continuing through the present, Rolling Thunder have conducted the “Rolling Thunder Run” on Memorial Day Weekend which all of its members attend.  Since 1987 the members of Rolling Thunder have converged on Washington, D.C to show their continued support for the efforts to find lost service men and women of past conflicts."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.24.194 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a desperate need of reliable sources (i.e., outside of the organization itself) for this information and the rest of the page. These sources should be verifiable. A good example would be major newspapers or books. tedder (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy

message: There would seem to be an obvious link between this group and the controversy surrounding US POWs supposedly still remaining in Vietnamese hands. What was their response to the Kerry committee's announcement that there were none?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam POWs Controversy 

message: There are no references for this section and it should be removed as needlessly inflammatory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudodude (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the edit you are discussing, and I removed it. tedder (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Impact  

message: Comparing Ride to the Wall (Rolling Thunder) and Run for the Wall (rftw.org) it is apparent that the name of the ride in D.C. has a discrepancy.  There may be different names for the different organizers? Or maybe one applies to the continent-wide rally and one just to D.C.?  Since this article is about Rolling Thunder org., I restored the term used by them. — Brianhe (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ride to the Wall versus Run for the Wall 

message: The Economist said the organization "was founded...to advance a specific crackpot belief: that successive Republican and Democratic administrations have concealed evidence that American captives are being held alive in South-East Asia.
That is equivalent to saying Southerners (USA) hold their Rebel flag as beloved because they intend to again attack the North.
Soldiers were held captive and (some) tortured, who were historically not release at the end of that war "on time" or are still MIA.  No one is asserting today people drive to DC in a protest the USA gov to begin new searches.
It is a legacy to remember the people some would find convenient to forget.
Saying it is a crackpot beleif is putting words in others mouth and is impertinent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called "criticism". You don't have to agree with it. The Economist is a highly respected publication recognized around the world. But their opinion is merely their opinion. We properly attributed the editorial opinion and didn't frame it as fact. I don't see what your problem is. Wikipedia articles include criticism from reputable sources, and people have a right to criticize Rolling Thunder. Freedom, you know?<P>I agree with your comparison with the sudden popularity of the Confederate Battle Flag during the 20th century Civil Rights Movement. Those who think there are lots of MIAs and who like the flag have lots in common. But again, just opinion. Articles on Wikipedia strive to give fair weight to all major points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, The Economist is published in London and doesn't always take kindly to American culture. Bu you're far less likely to hear criticism of an ostensibly pro-veteran group from a U.S. publication, I think. — Brianhe (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: the who?

message: Hi. According to <https://www.stripes.com/news/rolling-thunder-to-end-annual-memorial-day-ride-in-dc-after-2019-1.560494>, the Memorial Day ride in D.C. is ending after 2019. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Day ride in D.C. ending after 2019