Talk:Missing in action

message: hier a link from germany about Lieutenant Shannon Estill , us air force, 428. Fighter Squadron.
* Joint POW/MIA Account Command - Sucheinheit nach ehemaligen Vermissten und Kriegsgefangenen
found nearby Elsnig, near Torgau in northwestern Saxony.
Titel: Die Heimkehr des Leutnants Estill. In german newspaper Der Spiegel online, May 26th 2007 (www.spiegel.de/panorama/zeitgeschichte/0,1518,druck-485069,00.html)
if there is anybody, who want to have some more details about the documant.film, 
the notice is part of wp: de - US Army. So long. --Asdfj 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ww II, last man MIA back home 

message: Found this on the Village Voice, Schanberg lists a bunch of articles, but only the title and date. These will need to be searched for in google news archive or LexisNexis.
*
-Crockspot 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial source list from Schanberg 

message: Any chance we could get a more, non-american, worldwide view? I'm sure other countries have their MIA soldiers... or could the MIA from Iraq go into its own section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.29.56 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I have to agree. This article consists of one paragraph about MIA and then a huge section about US war heroes. This is a long way from the neutral POV that Wikipedia is meant to present. Either the US entry should be moved to an article of its own, or else a lot of other international examples must be added. As it stands this article looks very biased! 84.144.92.28 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: A new article exists, Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, which contains a fuller and fairer treatment of the American MIA issues related to the Vietnam War and Southeast Asia.  Accordingly, the material here on this subject has been boiled down to a summary, with a "main" link to the new article.  This should address at least some of the "worldwide view" criticism above.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work - that change is long overdue. Thanks for being bold and doing this. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of American Vietnam War material moved out 

message: :Regrettably, I have once again had to restore the content.  Please, let us all work together, with care taken not to belittle the contributions of others.  If there is objection to the material, propose a change and justify it in the talk section.  The language that I have restored was worked out by compromise over a long period of time.  If there is no objection to the content that has been restored, we can work out a move of the restored content. I don't think any of us have a problem in splitting up the subject into reasonable sections. But it seems clear from the comments that people have strong opinions regarding CONTENT, yet so far have been unwilling to make specific suggestions and justification regarding specific changes.  I strongly suggest we address any problems with the content now in a respectful manner.  It's clear that's the real issue.  ToTheCircus (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted this action as the discussion of the material is going on here, and there seems to be no other editors who support this material. I also see no evidence of any 'compromise over a long period of time' and labeling the removal of the material as being 'vandalism' is highly unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If you had checked the history of the article OR the history in the talk section, you would see the material had been worked out up until November 23, 2008.  There wasn't time for you to have looked very hard.  It's clearly one person trying to do a complete rewrite of what was there without specific justification-vandalism. ToTheCircus (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire talk history is available on this page, and shows a disagreement between you and wasted history and complaints by a couple of IP editors that the article was biased. There's no evidence of any prior compromise as you claim, and edit warring instead of participating in the current discussion is not very productive. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The compromise that I was referring to was the history of numerous contributors working together to come up with an end product, as opposed to Wasted Time R unilaterally pronouncing the topic would be at another location and doing a complete rewrite.  For example, one person writes what one side of a topic says, and a different person writes another side.  I'd used different words before in the talk section instead of the word compromise--my meaning was working together as a community. I'm sorry about that not being clear.  I was not referring to compromise in the talk section, if you go back in the talk section you will see despite numerous requests for Wasted Time R to specifically justify deletions or add material in sections rather than do a complete rewrite, he would settle for nothing less than his own complete rewrite.  So there was no compromise at all by Wasted Time R, or compromise between the two of us.  If anyone at anytime, without justification, could delete facts and introduce all kinds of inaccuracies in mass as he did,  all of Wikipedia would quickly be a real mess.  People could just go back and forth with complete rewrites.  I will revert to what had been previously established, and I still hope he can come up with some kind of specific justification in the talk area so we can hash out a fair and accurate product.  I will volunteer as much time as is needed so that we can get all of the facts straight. ToTheCircus (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The supposed "numerous contributors" put together this version of the article, that I first saw and started trying to rememdy in January 2008, a year ago.  That article was a one-sided portrayal of this issue that was in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:Undue weight among other guidelines.  There is no indication in the talk pages that anyone other than POW/MIA "live prisoners" believers had contributed to it, and the other side of this issue was not portrayed in that version of the article at all.  Nor was much of the history of issue adequately covered.  Your current version is no better.  Just because an article was in a bad state for period of time, doesn't mean it gets to stay in a bad state.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As I believe I have made very clear in previous discussions, having information from as many possible countries is to be encouraged.    The problem has been that Wasted Time R has deleted facts without specific justification, and has introduced a large quantity of false information, extremely biased information, and personal opinion. When I restored the info and brought up the vandalism, he repeated it.  I have made many offers for him to submit his proposed deletions and additions in manageable portions so that they could be reviewed by all.  I believe that even a minimal effort to work together would have cleared up a lot of the false statements that have been introduced at the other locations.  Let’s get the facts established.   Please submit proposed changes a section at a time, and stop the vandalism.  If anyone presents material that is factual and presents different sides of a topic in balance, and avoids insulting and demeaning statements, that material should be accepted without any problems. There is no reason to introduce demeaning information.   I’ll restore what has been vandalized—let’s get to work on the facts.  What’s the harm in allowing for scrutiny of information?  ToTheCircus (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not revert again - there has been no support here for your preferred version. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Content is the real objection, let's not obfuscate the issue 

message: False and misleading, and insulting/extremely biased information has been introduced at more than one location relating to this topic.  No one has come out and said they support false, misleading, or extremely biased information. Yet the vandalism continues.  Please stop.  Is anyone willing to consider the facts in discusion, as should be done? ToTheCircus (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ToTheCircus, if you look at the comments other editors have made about the content above, you'll see that no one else shares your belief about the content.  Nobody shares your characterization that this is "vandalism".  The one-sided depiction of this issue that you would like, you're not going to be able to get, and if you keep reverting this article, you'll just keep getting blocked, and then you won't be able to present your views at all.  If you're willing to accept an article that presents both sides of this issue, side by side, then I can work with you on it.  But the consensus is that it will have to be at Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, not here.  You say you want to go through section-by-section, fine.  Start with what happened in the 1970s, meaning what is covered in the "Origins" section of Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, and see what it is that you don't like in that section, or what it is that you think is missing from it.  Discuss it at Talk:Vietnam War POW/MIA issue.  And proceed from there.  But the current road you're on isn't going to get you anywhere.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Continues

message: The fine work during January by Wasted Time R and Nabokov has produced an excellent product.  HowardMorland (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but credit goes mostly to Nabokov.  I felt justified in finally taking the 'lacks worldwide context' and 'cleanup' tags off.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: Would it be notable to mention a 1994 U.S. stamp about P.O.W. / M.I.A.? See http://stores.bobscollections.com/Detail.bok?no=76
--Scriberius (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamps 

message: This article seems to be written from an American point of view, in that it only mentions wars in which the US has been involved, and from the 'Cold War' section onwards, only mentions American MIAs. The imbalance is particularly obvious in the Vietnam section, which has many paragraphs about the search for the approximately 2,000 missing Americans, and only briefly mentions that 300,000 Vietnamese are still missing as well. Imbalances like this are to some extent inevitable in an English-language encyclopaedia mainly written by Americans, but this article could really do with expansion to talk about MIAs from other countries. Robofish (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of editors try to keep a more global perspective, but you're right, it keeps drifting back to being U.S.-centric.  I've started a section on the Iran-Iraq War, however.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively American focus 

message: Portions of the text in the first paragraph are covered by an Infobox.  Is it my browser (IE9)?  NOTE:  No Edit Summary box.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems and solutions 

message: The article opens with "Missing in action (MIA) is a casualty Category assigned under the Status of Missing to armed services personnel who are reported missing ...". Why the capitalization of "Category" and "Status" and "Missing"? (Please see MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization".) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the sentence also seems rather strangely phrased. Why isn't it in more plain English? – e.g., it could be: "Missing in action (MIA) is the status assigned to armed services personnel who are reported missing during active service." or "Missing in action (MIA) is a term used to refer to armed services personnel who are reported missing during active service." —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was fixed by an . (Thank you to Jscorp.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess capitalization 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Missing in action which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*https://www.change.org/p/president-barack-obama-resolve-the-mysteries-surrounding-the-forgotten-men-of-the-forgotten-war
*:Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The hard-working bot has posted five copies of this message over the past few days. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it still doing that?  I put in several fixes over the last several days to fix this problem.  This makes me want to headdesk over and over.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Missing in action]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Missing in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122082857/http://www.wciv.com:80/news/stories/0109/586609.html to http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/0109/586609.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023152956/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7679697.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7679697.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080809230617/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_re_us/missing_soldier to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_re_us/missing_soldier
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The statement that "Becoming MIA has been an occupational risk for as long as there has been warfare" is unnecessary and unencyclopaedic.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupational risk 

message: note on dpaa website:
http://www.dpaa.mil/Our-Missing/Past-Conflicts/
"Reflects actual number still unaccounted-for. PMKOR database count is slightly higher due to several entries pending administrative review".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.80.135 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: differences In Korea war MIas number

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missing in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006080545/http://www.aiipowmia.com/gulag/jcsdgulag4062002.html to http://www.aiipowmia.com/gulag/jcsdgulag4062002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Missing in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015055049/http://www.cwgc.org/news-events/news/two-unmarked-graves-in-popielow-cemetery-poland-discovered-to-be-those-of-two-british-servicemen.aspx to http://www.cwgc.org/news-events/news/two-unmarked-graves-in-popielow-cemetery-poland-discovered-to-be-those-of-two-british-servicemen.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/towton/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927102923/http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/monchy.htm to http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/monchy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927102959/http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/bosisto.htm to http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/bosisto.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607213748/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/SoldiersFoundInFromellesWwiMassGraveToBeReburied.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/SoldiersFoundInFromellesWwiMassGraveToBeReburied.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629165259/http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20021022IE19 to http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20021022IE19
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309052120/http://www.kokodaspirit.com/newsletters/kokoda-spirit-new-february%2027-2008.htm to http://www.kokodaspirit.com/newsletters/kokoda-spirit-new-february%2027-2008.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309052120/http://www.mcquat.co.uk/las_unknown_german.htm to http://www.mcquat.co.uk/las_unknown_german.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811150036/http://www.keepingthepromisealive.com/petitions/ to http://www.keepingthepromisealive.com/petitions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321171551/http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0408%2Cschanberg2%2C51267%2C1.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0408%2Cschanberg2%2C51267%2C1.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120326135859/http://matrimonial.siasat.com/english/news/iraq-starts-looking-soldiers-missing-action-kuwait-iran to http://matrimonial.siasat.com/english/news/iraq-starts-looking-soldiers-missing-action-kuwait-iran
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Missing in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318074653/http://www.daylife.com/photo/07OYcF36Y206d to http://www.daylife.com/photo/07OYcF36Y206d
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118052329/http://www.defence.gov.au/fromelles/ to http://www.defence.gov.au/fromelles/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104210051/https://rangel.house.gov/news/press-releases/rangel-introduces-resolution-repatriate-powmias-and-abductees-north-korea to https://rangel.house.gov/news/press-releases/rangel-introduces-resolution-repatriate-powmias-and-abductees-north-korea
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161105032411/https://rangel.house.gov/news/press-releases/rangel-conyers-johnson-introduce-resolution-recover-powmia-remains-north-korea to https://rangel.house.gov/news/press-releases/rangel-conyers-johnson-introduce-resolution-recover-powmia-remains-north-korea
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missing in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109232746/http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20100717/NEWS/7170303/Lost-Korean-War-battalion-awaits-MIA-decision to http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20100717/NEWS/7170303/Lost-Korean-War-battalion-awaits-MIA-decision
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: It is suggested that some participants in the Battle of Thermopylae may have ended up MIA. What is special about Thermopylae? It seems just as likely that participants in the many earlier battles of which we have knowledge also became MIA.Bill (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Thermopylae?