Talk:James Stockdale

Type of Aircrat

I'm also a nit-picking Marine, and all sources point to the fact that James Stockdale flew F-8s, not A-4Es like John McCain did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of a speech given by Admiral Stockdale to students at the Amphibious Warfare School in 1995. He states he was shot down in an A-4. It was not uncommon for the CAG to fly all airplanes in the Air Group at that time. See Page 8 of http://www.usna.edu/ethics/Publications/stoicism1.pdf 64.135.58.195 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Main Image

I have to be the nit-picking Marine on this one: His Combat Action Ribbon is on upside-down in the info-box photo. Can we get this fixed?Windyjarhead 07:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image. The original can be found here. Windyjarhead 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rank

The article states he was the highest ranking naval officer held as a Vietnam POW, but doesn't state what that rank was, only that he was promoted several times after his release until his retirement as a vice admiral. Deadlock 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he was promoted while still in captivity to the rank of Captain. If anyone in the know has a better take on this please speak your piece because I'm not exactly sure. Wikiphyte 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember that recent movie about McCain correctly, he was a rear admiral (LH) when he was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.162.35 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"In Love and War" states that he was a commander when captured, and was promoted to captain while a POW. He was promoted to rear admiral shortly after his return. It also said that there was a period where a lt. colonel outranked him within the prison, but Stockdale resumed command of the POW's when he was promoted. News of the promotion was brought to him by another pilot who was shot down.Silpion (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

McCain retired as a CAPT. Windyjarhead (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs serious cleanup. See this minor cleanup for examples of what needs to be done. /Blaxthos 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST Assessment

Please please please add more intext references and citations... this is a brilliantly written article, and I've got to congratulate the editors here. It can very well become a GA class or better, if only you add more citations, and some more text in some parts. I was extremely sad to have given this only a start class rating, because this was one page that really had me reading from start to end. Good Luck. Sniperz11_{C ^@ S} 13:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed two of the "citation needed" tags since the info is included in one of the online references (Hoover institute).--AveryG (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stockdale as a Philospher. My only personal contact with Adm. Stockdale was in 1979 or 1980 when he addressed a group of "Old Crows" at one of their periodic luncheons which happened to be held in the building serving the rowing crews of the U. S. Naval Academy. (The Association of Old Crows is made up of those who have had experience within the U.S. military ommunications and signals intelligence community, going back to WWII). The subject of his talk was "The Best is the Enemy of Good Enough". He drew a contrast between the simple "tap code" used by the POWs in Hoa Loa and the sophisticated communications used by Colonel (Brigadier General?) Charlie Beckwith during the Iranian Hostage rescue attempt. (I also, not by coincidence, worked with then Colonel Beckwith on Adm. Jack McCain's (John McCain's father) CINCPAC staff in the early 1970's.)

Adm. Stockdale's contention was that the simple code used by the POW's was easily undertood by them and for whatever reason not by the Vietnamese, and was used extensively on a daily basis by whomever was chosen to sweep the compound. By sweeping in a pattern using the code the chosen POW was able to transmit the latest news to everyone within hearing range. It was also used for indidual communications as well. This obviously falls in the category of "Good Enough", and was used succesfully to maintain morale and to strengthen the resolve of the prisoners.

In contrast, Charlie Beckwith's rescue command was furnished the very latest in communications equipment ("The Best") and once they were assembled in their pre-assault location in the desert, every minute particle of conversation between the members of the various teams was piped directly into the situation room at the White House. Once difficulties began to occur (accidental loss of an airplane and a helicopter) the conversations on the ground naturally became very excited and urgent. The result was that the listeners in the White House assumed a disaster had taken place (it hadn't), panic set in, and the President aborted the mission, not the commander on the ground.

Adm. Stockdale contends that if the communication had simply been "Good Enough" and not "The Best" the mission would have continued with reduced assets and still been successful. Thus, "The Best" was the enemy of "Good Enough".

Source is personal experience of James W. Bradner, III, LTC USA RET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.165.206 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Morse

One of the quotes is described as being part of "a personal letter to Morse". Who is Morse? Google suggests that it might be Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon[1] but I can't find a really really good source, e.g. the New York Times or Time Magazine. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Miller

I've dropped the Dennis Miller Quote: It seems likely to be an urban legend. First, the phrasing "he was the first guy in and the last guy out of a war that... wanted no part of" seems lifted straight from an episode of the West Wing, when President Bartlet allows an outspoken General to leave office and criticize him for precisely that reason. Moreover, the ending of the quote, about "committing the ultimate sin: he did not look good on television." is precisely ripped from a talk by fellow West Winger Bradley Whitford, including at his 2007 Commencement Speech at Princeton University, in describing the fates of Al Gore and John Kerry, among others. Moreover, Miller, though now a substantial Conservative pundit/comedian, before 9/11 was far more liberal and, while political, less partisan. This just doesn't sound like Dennis Miller, especially to be an amalgamation of two speeches both written much later. Smells like a forgery to me, and a random internet forum post doesn't scream "credible source" here. -Crock1701 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I heard this Dennis Miller rant. Asking for sources and direct quotes before re-insertion are quite reasonable however. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this back in. It's no urban legend, though the wording on the portion that you deleted was a little bit off. If the West Wing used those phrases, then they ripped them from HIM, not the other way around. This comment was from his "Dennis Miller Live from Washington D.C." set, which was released in 1994. Here is the full quote:

“Now I know (Stockdale’s name has) become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let’s look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including our present President, did not want to dirty their hands with.

The reason he had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate is because those f***ing animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn’t spill his guts. He teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he’s a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television.

Miller went on to jest that the job can't be that hard, considering that Dan Quayle had done it for the previous 4 years.

To be clear, this was an unusual move for Miller at the time, but he frequently talks about the effect that the 1992 election had on him. Dennis Miller has repeatedly stated that the evisceration of Stockdale in 1992 was the first thing that started nudging him to conservative views, and September 11th was the straw that broke the camel's back.--199.48.5.2 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I remember the Miller rant. It definitely happened, and is not urban legend. It was indeed fairly unusual for him to make such strong political commentary at the time (it was back when he was still, you know, entertaining), so it really stuck with me. 69.211.15.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

This definitely happened. Here's a youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-RBYRpydXk&index=8&list=PLGzxQLLsdUu7qZuSYXcXZ6UHhU9TJiq_1&t=65s Ceresly (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Tone

I'm not a serious wikipedia editor, but I got the feeling when I read this that it was written by someone who cared very much for this guy. While I have no problem with that, it didn't sound very encyclopedic... maybe someone who has more experiences could go in and use the space currently filled with stories about his courage in the face of hardship while being held as a POW with referenced facts about his time there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.226.62 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The tone is extremely POV (i.e. "he told them in no uncertain terms") and may have the most non-cited info I've ever seen in a wikipedia page. 69.211.15.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

Bad Handling/Heavy Handed Handling of Editing Issues

Some of the editing points here are valid, and yet, considering that his family is still probably alive, it seems rather heavy handed and also extremely insensitive the way it is being handled here considering how much this man (and his family) have gone through.

• • Especially considering that he was a Prisoner of War in brutal conditions and that his family also suffered greatly during this period. I find it especially kind of disturbing that such an energetic response (along with a big "neutrality" banner) were used to handle these issues here. **A few quiet edits were really all that were needed, and would have been enough, to fix the article, instead of posting a big banner and writing all this stuff, coldly and mercilessly dissecting everything.

Yes some edits of non-neutral phrases were needed, but the way it has been handled here is pretty cold-hearted and Frankly, rather shabby.

In short, the big "Neutrality" banner and all the energetic, lecturing writing back here wasn't really neccessary. Just quietly fixing the non-neutral phrases would have been sufficient. 98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"A few quiet edits"? It looks like it needs a nearly 100% overhaul, even 9 months after you said that. Nobody is questioning the guy's honor or his service to the country. Those things don't exempt his entry from the rules, though. 69.211.15.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

(See NPOV section below this one for example of very insensitive and overly-extreme editing of article).

173.246.35.178 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV violations

The tone of this article is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It reads more like a fan website. Examples:

"Stockdale had promised his father that he would try to become the best midshipman at the Naval Academy. Years later, that promise served to strengthen him, while a prisoner of war in Vietnam."

"After he was captured, this knowledge threw a burden upon him."

"Little did Stockdale know that the actions of his wife, Mrs. Sybil Stockdale, had a tremendous impact on the North Vietnamese."

"He received the Medal of Honor in 1976. Stockdale filed charges against two other officers who, he felt, had given aid and comfort to the enemy. However, the Navy Department under the leadership of the-Secretary of the Navy John Warner took no action and merely retired these men 'in the best interests of the Navy.'" [Emphasis added.]

I'm adding a POV-check tag to the page, requesting that the article be checked for violations of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. I'm sure past editors were well-intentioned, but there doesn't seem to be an appreciation here for the "just the facts" approach appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

In addition, the article needs more citations for specific assertions of fact. Thefellswooper (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an fyi, I believe it still needs more citations for specific assertions of fact... Azx2 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Mr. Stockdale's emontions, reflections, coping strategies and so one are essential for the article. As long as it is clearly shown, that the article is qouting/referring his personal views, there's no probem, after all personal experiences are always personal and never objective.

As for the "After he was captured, this knowledge threw a burden upon him"-sentence, it just needs a reference to somewhere he actually stated this.

Regarding:

"He received the Medal of Honor in 1976. Stockdale filed charges against two other officers who, he felt, had given aid and comfort to the enemy. However, the Navy Department under the leadership of the-Secretary of the Navy John Warner took no action and merely retired these men 'in the best interests of the Navy.'" [Emphasis added.]

Yes and no again. "However" doesn't imply that Mr. Stockdale was right, and that the Navy Department was wrong - only that the Navy didn't act the way Mr. Stockdale had intended in the first sentence/periode. However, I _do_ agree that "merely" should be deleted, since the two officers were never proven guilty. So it's not proven who was right, Stockdale or Navy. Deleting "merely" would be enough. Then it would be stated, that the Navy did nothing, because it was 'in the best interest of the Navy' (and then we and Mr. Stockdale may agree or disagree with this fact - taking no action and the stated reason).

To sum up, in this article personal views of Mr. Stockdale are relevant, and therefore it's essential that interpretations of facts of his life can be attributed to him via sources. Very personal emotions and experiences are also facts for the person concerned, and if they are interesting, we need to get to these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.22.22 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ill read through it in the next few days and see if I can clean it up some. --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see section (placed above this one) about shabby handling of neutrality issue.

173.246.35.178 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The guy was tortured while he was a Prisoner of War and his family also suffered while he was a POW, all while serving their country in wartime.

Frankly calling this a "fan page" due to some NPOV issues, is grossly insensitive. Rules can be enforced in a sensitive way, and should be, especially in a case like this. 173.246.35.178 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issues are precisely what mark the difference between a fan page and an encyclopedic entry, regardless of how admirable the subject is.69.211.15.223 (talk)

I don't see NPOV in this article. I see respect. Just because the article is respectful doesn't mean that it is too much like a fan page. I don't see the fan page bit at all. --Lacarids (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people on this NPOV thread have talked about respect. Even if respect were important in an encyclopedia article (it isn't), that respect should be for the facts. The fact is that Stockdale is a highly decorated naval officer who followed his orders with nobility and dedication. The fact is also that he has freely admitted to violating his service oath. Enlisted men swear to follow orders; officers swear to defend the constitution. When Stockdale chose to participate in the lies about the second gulf of tonkin incident (this is not a conspiracy theory, it's from his own mouth, referenced on this page), he allowed the president to circumvent the constitutional requirement that prevents any one man from declaring war except in the case of a threat to the nation. There was no threat; Stockdale chose orders over his oath, and he is partly responsible for the unlawful death of many Americans and Vietnamese.

The difference between respect and worship/fandom is balance. Stockdale was a war hero, but also a liar, and a traitor to the us constitution.184.99.164.203 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Early life

He was born in late 1923, making him prime age to serve in WWII -- he was 18 years old when Pearl Harbor happened in Dec 1941. The article does not say what he did during WWII, it only says he went to college for one year in 1946, then spent one year at the Naval Academy in 1947 -- which is strange since normally one spends more than a year to graduate from the Naval Academy! Anyone have more info about his early years, to explain how he spent the WWII years, and Naval Academy time? Green Cardamom (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I just flipped through "In Love & War" and couldn't find dates of his Annapolis tenure. It does say he was in Annapolis in spring 1946 and got his wings in 1950. He was also stationed on a ship and attended sonar school in 1947.Silpion (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin

RE: "He later said that while in captivity, he was concerned that he would be forced to reveal this secret about the Vietnam War," in the Gulf of Tonkin section...What is the source for this paraphrased quote? --Lacarids (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Stockdale published a collection of speeches and essays called "Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot"; although the quote is from there, I don't know whether the author took it directly from there or from the Fifteenth Annual Stockdale Lecture, by Martin L. Cook, given in January 2012 and reprinted in the Summer 2012 issue of the Naval War College Review. Cook cites several quotes from Stockdale's collection. 108.15.29.132 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for minor edit - fix URL linked in #18 in NOTES section

Presuming the REFLIST used for the NOTES section is edit-protected, this is a edit request for a non-urgent minor edit of #18 in the NOTES section, as explained below...

No biggie, but the link currently provided in Note #18 no longer works. Here is that (nonfunctional) URL: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/interviews/stockdale.html

The functional URL link to that transcript of a 1999 interview on PBS News Hour is now as follows: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/debatingourdestiny/interviews/stockdale.html

I was able to access and fix the link in the section which follows ('Online References' subsection of 'REFERENCES' section), but the 'Notes' links are in a REFLIST which I (apparently) don't have access to. Or maybe I just don't know how to access it,* although I did search on that; whatever (*in case it isn't obvious, I don't do a lot of editing in these here parts). Thanks. Sharl928 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Sharl928

@Sharl928: I've updated the link as you requested. To find the reference just click on the caret ^ (or, if there are superscript letters, letter a ^a) next to the reference number and then edit the section it's in. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary section under official portrait - award order of precedence

Is his list of awards in order of precedence? If not, it should be. If it is, I think it's incorrect. The order of precedence shows the Purple Heart preceding the Air Medal - yet the official portrait shows him wearing the Air Medal before the Purple Heart. I doubt he would have gotten the precedence wrong for an official portrait. Marcerickson (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Belay that - he is wearing the order he desires because he is allowed that privilege by winning the Medal Of Honor. I am awaiting a citation/reference of that allowance/privilege as it's not on the Medal Of Honor page here.Marcerickson (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

2nd row: He misplaced the Purple Heart and the Air Medal (followed by the American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, and Navy Occupation Service Medal),

3rd row: National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Uniform, right side: He also incorrectly placed the Navy Combat Action Ribbon (blue color goes on left side of ribbon not red) after the Navy Unit Commendation.

Everyone makes mistakes including MOH reciepients. YahwehSaves (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified medal shown in official portrait

Can anyone ID the medal shown to the right of the Purple Heart? Its ribbon has a medium blue centre stripe, a narrow white stripe either side of that, and a narrow red stripe either side of that. There may be more ribbon stripes but it's difficult to tell from this photo. The obverse seems to show a helicopter. The ribbon colours aren't shown in the current Navy order of precedence reference document or the current ranks and ribbons reference. Is it from another service or another country? Marcerickson (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the American Campaign Medal (12/7-41-3/2/46) followed by the World War II Victory Medal. YahwehSaves (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The centre stripes were obscured by the suspension and suspension ring of the Legion of Merit. Marcerickson (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody know how he comes to wearing the American Campaign Medal, as it was only awarded until March 2, 1946? He was commissioned only in June of 1946... 2001:7E8:C296:EB01:D01:E3BD:E51A:43AE (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

He served as a Midshipman at the Navy Academy, June/43 to June/1946. One year stateside service is required if not serving overseas to be eligible for the ACM (Dec. 7, 1941 to Mar. 2, 1946). He may have thought he was entitled to the ACM because he was entitled to the WWII Victory Medal (Dec. 7, 1941 to Dec. 31, 1946). Its a question of whether or not Midshipman were included in the eligibility for the ACM which does not seem to be the case (?). YahwehSaves (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's original research and while questions like these are interesting please remember WP:NOTAFORUM. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Midshipmen (and cadets) are entitled to certain federal service awards (e.g. National Defense Service Medal) according to the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, page 1-4, "Midshipmen Eligibity": "U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen are eligible for those awards for which they may qualify." This is a talk page not a scrutiny page ("it does not matter"....). YahwehSaves (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Stockdale. 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/20090130025702/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/about/pastpresidents.aspx to http://www.nwc.navy.mil/about/pastpresidents.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

politician?

To editors JimmyJoe87 and Magnolia677: Before you two violate WP:3RR, please consider that this is a difference of opinion. I don't think the subject was a politician because he ran unsuccessfully for one office. There are similar arguments elsewhere. Please discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• No other editor had any issue with that category and Magnolia is only doing it to be petty because he didn't like the edit I did to Michelle Lee, which turned out to be correct. Regardless of whether or not he ran for office once or whether he was a perennial candidate, he ran for and was a candidate for political office and was therefore a politician. I can add numerous sources that state he was a politician from NY Times to the Washington Post. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Then you should provide the sources here. Per WP:BRD, we need to find consensus. I didn't revert your edit but I am fine not labeling Stockdale a politician. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• • — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyJoe87 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

References

@JimmyJoe87: Thank you for providing a source. You have added a "politician" category to many biographies, without it being obvious that the person was ever a politician (you reverted two editors who removed "politician" from Douglas MacArthur). Please add sources to these articles to support your edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?

Actor of the same name 193.120.36.133 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)