Talk:Robert R. Garwood

message: What service was Garwood in? 
He returned in 1979 and had his status changed in 1998. Other than that, this article does not account for any chronology. I'd sure like to know when all the events described happened.
172.134.5.158 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs work 

message: This section of the paragraph lends itself to be read as a section of a personal opinion work, and thus presents itself as possibly biased set of statements.  Actual citations would improve the credibility, otherwise it appears that it should be left out.
"McKenney was a dedicated career Marine officer with a "the tougher-it-gets, it's-just-right-for-me-and-my guys" attitude who believed in the Corps and the leadership above him.[citation needed] When he heard about this "traitor" Garwood, he took personal responsibility for hunting him down and killing him.[citation needed] Garwood, according to official decree, was an enemy collaborator and had to be eliminated. McKenney never questioned the word from the top, and from day one he went after Garwood with a vengeance, but never could find him.[citation needed]"
Specifically;
"...a "the tougher-it-gets, it's-just-right-for-me-and-my guys" attitude who believed in the Corps and the leadership above him."
:This appears to read as rhetoric and there is no way to prove thus without a specific citation including a quote from McKenney himself,or an official letter of recommendation/citation including this phrase.
"...he took personal responsibility for hunting him down and killing him."
:This is difficult to prove again without proper citations as noted above.  A more unbiased sounding statement may be; "...he accepted the responsibility..."  but this must also be cited for accuracy.
"Garwood, according to official decree, was an enemy collaborator and had to be eliminated."
:A citation would be needed for the "eliminated" part of this statement, or it must be clarified that this is hearsay without proper evidence.
"McKenney never questioned the word from the top, and from day one he went after Garwood with a vengeance, but never could find him.[citation needed]"
:The phrases "never questioned", "from day one", and "with a vengeance" read as movie quotes or passages from novels and are typically not present in certified works of accurate research as they tend to show emotionally biased thoughts.  If this are found to be quotes from McKenney himself, or superior officers of his, such citations would improve their credibility.
:I believe (and I could easily be wrong here) that McKenney claimed to actually have met him in a hotel room.  Though this would also need to be carefully cited.
:In the source of the paragraph a website was referenced for editors; "http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/renne/renne1.html".  Unfortunately, this is very clearly a biased article and should not be included as accurate referencing because said biased.  I can understand the author wanting to include this type of source, but it only furthers the perception of the reader's that the author may have been misinformed through such sources.  More accurate citation sources would include testimony from McKenney and Garwood themselves, quotes from superior officers, records of trial proceedings or other sources that are not emotionally charged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefrisch (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Sources & adverbs/adjectives needed 

message: "The real Garwood, whose role Macchio portrayed in the production, was a consultant to the film's producers, according to which Garwood had been ordered to survive by one of his superiors, who was also a captive of the North Vietnamese."
The above sentence is gibberish. It needs to be split into two or more sentences to clarify the meaning, that is if the meaning can be clarified. The author of the above may not know what he is trying to say here. We certainly can't make sense of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run on sentence 

message: According to the text, he was declared missing in 1965, and the next date is the 1981 BBC interview. What happened in between? The lead says he returned to the US in 1979, but how? Why? If anybody has the books, or is familiar with the topic, the article would benefit from having this missing chunk of time filled in. Also, what's doing now? He can't be supporting himself on book and movie deals. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time chunk missing 

message: I changed "impersonated" to "played".  Would we refer to an actor "impersonating" anyone else?  Geo Swan (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird wording

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert R. Garwood. 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/20060509174926/http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter/inantonres3998.html to http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter/inantonres3998.html
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 09:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is quite possible that North Vietnam kept Robert Garwood as captive after the March 1973 release date. His pow status could of been until June 4, 1975 when the last pow prisoners were killed ending the Vietnam war. After that date they had no propaganda reason to keep him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:4430:595B:19A4:3E79 (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pow status end date actually June 4, 1975.. 

message: I notice you removed the category and I just reverted that edit. Based on my reading of the article, there doesn't appear to be a dispute on whether Garwood was a POW for a time; he was captured and taken prisoner. The main controversy here is mostly about his time spent in Vietnam after the war ended; Garwood claims he was still held prisoner, but independent investigations have not found evidence to support his claims. eπi (talk | contribs) 14:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was sorting the :Category:American prisoners of war into their wars. He should be in the subcategory :Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see; I assume you forgot to make the category replacement in the original edit? I've done the replacement. eπi (talk | contribs) 22:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing in [[:Category:American prisoners of war]] 

message: The article just ends with his court martial. What happened in the next 40 years? Where did he end up? If it isn't known, then it should say that. No death date is listed, so presumably he is stil alive, somewhere. Venqax (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where now? 

message: The list of works on Garwood included "BOHICA : Operation Grand Eagle-Official USA/ISA POW/MIA Rescue Mission Gone Awry, published 1987 written by Scott T. Barnes, Mission Specialist. Debriefing of Robert Garwood in 1986 with LTG Tighe Jr-DIA." Inadequate publication data to list here. If this is the same as "Bohica: a True Account of One Man's Battle to Expose the Most Heinous Cover-Up of the Vietnam Saga" it is a self-published work that doesn't come close to meeting the reliable source standard. Rgr09 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unreliable source 

message: The government never showed proof that he refused to return in 1973. The government actually was surprised that he was still alive in 1979 as the claimed for 6 years all servicemen had returned. 184.16.71.20 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1998 status changed to AWOL/Deserter? 

message: According to a relative of Gary Garwood. Garwood was at a pow slave labor camp in North Vietnam where at least 50 American POWs were still alive working off life sentences for claimed war crimes. These POWS were either murdered of died sometime after February 10,1979. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These rubbish claims are covered in Post-war POW claim investigation section. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

text: More rubbish claims. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

text: You go on believing your conspiracy theories and the claims of a traitor trying to rehabilitate his image. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The truth is already known, no US POWS were left alive and Garwood was a traitor. Mztourist (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep believing the lies of the US government. THe same government who said Agent Orange was harmless to people. ￼ 50.102.147.20 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep believing the lies that the traitor Garwood told. Mztourist (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pows alive as of February 10,1979