Talk:Military stress card

Is it underlying reason true?

It shouldn't be hard to find expert opinions as to whether or not recruits were more or less able to tolerate the stress of basic training. Other than Louis Gosset's first line from An Officer and a Gentleman; latest recruits are always called the worst they've ever seen. This article for example says quality is down https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/recruits-ineligibility-tests-the-military-1403909945 except it dates at 2014. The period for the supposed stress cards would be the mid 1990s. That article also addresses the proportion of qualified candidates who contacted a recruiter, rather than the quality of those in basic training. It also only vaguely mentions if recruiting goals are being met. IIRC during the mid 90s there were few if any enlistment bonuses, indicating there was no reason to send less than stellar candidates to training. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dennis: Interesting line of inquiry for the mutable recruiting standards. See [1][2][3][4][5] for related concerns re pot smoking, obesity, single motherhood, tattoos. But where to put it?-Brianhe (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The post-Iraq War articles are dealing with a totally different issue: they weren't meeting recruiting and retention goals because fewer people wanted to be in a war, particularly with repeated deployments. It's true a lot of the coverage about the wartime personnel issues mentioned the stress cards, but the origin of the myth is in the 1990s, during the post-Cold War drawdown, when the only recruiting problem would have been a strong economy. Except unemployed was 7.5% in 1992, and didn't drop below 5% until 1997. As far as I can tell, the only basis for the origin of the myth was dislike of the Clinton administration, and opposition to reducing force sizes during that period.

Anyway, here's a report from someone who knows more about this than me. After the first Gulf War, their was public enthusiasm for the armed forces. The new 1993 minimum standards for 90% high school diplomas and 60% with above average on the AFQT scores was easily met. However in, the years from that point, quality declined through 2002, thought the minimums were never missed by any branch of service. They have a list of possible causes, including increased college and others. I guess it is at least superficially possible for someone to believe the stress card story is plausible, though in fact it's more complicated than that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I added some data about the 1990s. It might be too far off topic and excessive but I think it gives some context. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What is it/what does it do?

The article is missing an explanation what it even is or what its purpose is. It only talks about how it might exist, and how it might soften the military. So it's a card with a thermometer, but what are you measuring? Body temperature? "Press here" is what the card says, what happens if you press it? Why does it exist, and what is it supposed to do? Also it is nor clear at all how the "background" subject relates to it. The whole background paragraph only mentions the stress card once, by saying it existed during the time of ... and then follows a text about how recruit number and quality changed during that time. It is not clear if the stress card was issued because of these numbers, or if the stress card caused these numbers to change, or how they are related. It is not possible to understand this article without prior knowledge about this thing. 46.223.193.141 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Military stress card

The Military stress card article should be deleted; it is based on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the TIME source.

It contains the sentences:

"The military stress card, a wallet-size card incorporating a liquid crystal thermometer, is the subject of debate whether or not its use by recruits is an urban legend. According to Snopes.com and Stars and Stripes, stress cards can not be used by recruits in boot camp to halt training.[1][2] But according to Time magazine, it was issued for this purpose by the Navy for recruits heading to boot camp at RTC Great Lakes."

However, the TIME source does not mention anything about a card that incorporates a liquid crystal thermometer.

The TIME source talks about the same card that was mentioned in the snopes (which is blue and does not contain a thermometer). TIME does not say it can be used to halt training. It says: "The card instructs a recruit to hand it over to a Navy trainer if he or she feels blue." and if we look at the image on snopes we see the card contains the sentence: "present this card to your RDC".

The image used in the article is misleading; that is not the real card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are not intentionally misrepresenting the source to add a hoax to Wikipedia then you should get that article deleted.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,138095,00.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stress-cards/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_stress_card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved cmt above from my personal talkpage so more people can participate. I may or may not have time to deal with it right away. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Military stress card

Please provide evidence for the following claims:

-The TIME source is talking about a card that incorporates a liquid crystal thermometer -The TIME source says this card can be used by recruits in boot camp to halt training -The image used in the article shows the military stress card (the card shown has nothing to do with the military; the Snopes article contains an image of the real card) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have asked Dennis Bratland to provide evidence for these claims. I did get a response but not the evidence i asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I did fix the problem but my improvements have been undone. So now the article is misrepresenting the TIME source again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't expect a response in five minutes. Five days would be unusually quick. This article is not that high a priority and most of us are in the middle of other things at the moment. But rest assured we can work with you. Your "improvements" were wholesale deletions of most of the article content, and the only clear reason you've given is that one image is misidentified? Why not simply go ahead now and change the caption a little to more accurately identify the image?

I think we should all agree that, as it says in the very first sentence of this article, this subject is not straightforward, but rather is something that has been widely misunderstood and misreported by various different sources. The basic point of the article is to review various claims that have been made over the years, and try to state clearly and verifiably who said what when, and which of those things we can be sure of and which are dubious. To get our in-text attribution correct, in other words. I think the main goal is to phrase it correctly so we aren't mixing up facts, opinions and speculation. We can do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "the only clear reason you've given is that one image is misidentified?" Please read the section above, the editsummaries in the history of the article and the TIME and Snopes pages. Also see your page and Bri's page. You have responded there. Bri's page contains the same text as the first post of the section above and it gives multiple reasons why this article is problematic.

The article is misrepresenting what TIME says.

The article says:

"The military stress card, a wallet-size card incorporating a liquid crystal thermometer, is the subject of debate whether or not its use by recruits is an urban legend. According to Snopes.com and Stars and Stripes, stress cards can not be used by recruits in boot camp to halt training.[1][2] But according to Time magazine, it was issued for this purpose by the Navy for recruits heading to boot camp at RTC Great Lakes."

TIME does not mention a card that incorporates a thermometer.

TIME does not say this alleged card can be used to force superiors to stop the training or be more nice.

The TIME article is referring to the card seen in the image on the Snopes page.

The image used on wikipedia is not of the real card, but of some weird other non-military card that has nothing to do with this topic.

The real card simply informs soldiers that if they feel depressed or wish to self harm that they have some options of people they can talk to.

Changing the caption would not fix the problem that this image is misleading because it is a completely different card that has nothing to do with what the article is about. If there is a picture of a zebra on the page about inflation it is best to remove that picture, not to explain in the subtitles that zebras and inflation have nothing to do with eachother.

Please re-implement my improvements.

I read through all of the sources, and none of them mention a "liquid crystal thermometer". Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. I hope I don't get sent to Guantanamo for revealing this secret; but US military personnel use their eyes and ears to detect unhealthy levels of stress in others. Not liquid crystal thermometers. Thermometers measure temperature, not stress. Please don't tell wikileaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I expect that the image name on commons (of a card issued by a Family Support Center on a Navy base) somehow got conflated with the "stress" card that the sources talk about. Removing the picture and the mention of the liquid crystal thermometer would clean it up. Schazjmd (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be a good start. But unfortunately there are quite a few problems with the page. The TIME source simply does not support the claims made in the article. Reading Wikipedia it seems like TIME is saying there are cards that recruits in bootcamp can use to stop their training. The source is being misrepresented. 188.72.102.7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, there's other tweaking also needed. I'll take a look at this again tomorrow. Schazjmd (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is there are probably two cards. One is a liquid crystal thermometer as shown in the current image, including official Navy logos and such, supposedly measures stress with the same principle as a mood ring. The blurred out text (due to copyright issues but available at the vendor's website [6]) explains this. The other card is more apocryphal, Snopes has a picture of something, with no military identification at all, but is it authentic?

By the way, I took the picture used in the article, and probably have the card somewhere. It is definitely authentic. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 types of cards. One is what I'd call a suicide prevention card. You can see the photo of an official Navy suicide prevention card on the Snopes page. Here is another, more modern, example of a suicide prevention card (but for the army, and probably not the navy) http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/ACE-card.jpg

The other type of card is an unofficial promotional gift handed out by certain support organisations. That one contains the pseudoscientific thermometer nonsense. Any individual, company or organisation can print them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_merchandise

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-310df6169defd27fdf606820050fa739

https://www.mapleleafpromotions.com/Stress_Card_3.jpg

See here for the answer to the question: https://www.quora.com/Do-stress-cards-actually-exist-in-the-military/answer/Vance-Baker

quote: " Do things call stress cards exist and have they at times been handed out by units or support organization within the military. Yes. Were the given out by any branch of service to everyone? No. Did they give any power to avoid doing anything? No."

So yes the card you have is authentic but its not from the army/navy/airforce, just some support organisation. And you have misrepresented the TIME source.

If you use either of these cards while in bootcamp hoping that you'll get a break from training (and perhaps a lovely cup of warm chocolate milk) you're in for a disappointing surprise.

Please read the TIME article and compare it to the claims made on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the confusion arose because the author of the article read a blog on PsyWeb.com (not to be confused with other similarly named sites), a website that allows any "freelance writer" (aka unemployed person) to write blogs (no expertise needed, no peer review, no fact-checking or editorial oversight), and confused that with TIME. In that blog the writer claims that someone who claimed to be a drill sergeant (but wanted to stay anonymous) once told him that there are stress cards that can be used to opt out of stressful training excercises. The writer of that blog is obviously not a reliable source for anything and the guy he spoke to was probably pulling his leg (if he existed; he could very well be made up). https://web.archive.org/web/20151020052857/http://www.psyweb.com/lifestyle/ptsd/one-reason-that-ptsd-is-on-the-rise-in-the-military

Now that I have removed all the offtopic nonsense that doesnt even mention stress cards there are only 5 sentences left, and 2 of them are misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Offtopic

The following text is offtopic and should be removed. There is also an image that goes along with it. It has nothing to do with military stress cards; real or fake.

Though all branches of the armed services met or exceeded their recruiting goals through this period, recruit quality fell from the peak reached in 1992. "High quality" enlisted recruits, defined as having both a high school diploma and an above average Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score were far lower in the 1970s, rising through the 1993 establishment of the first minimum requirement for recruit quality, which was met every year since, in spite of dropping in subsequent years.* Possible explanations offered in hindsight were waning public enthusiasm for the military in the years immediately following the successful Gulf War (1990-1991), which coincided with decreasing unemployment and better civilian pay relative to the military; more high school graduates attending college instead of enlisting; and a perceived drop in quality of life and job satisfaction in the military. Even at their lowest point in 2000, these statistical measures of recruit quality remained well above those of the 1970s and early to mid 1980s.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed offtopic stuff that doesn't even mention military stress cards. I have found a page that explains why offtopic rants are a bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You can find the content here if you want to add it to another article where it is actually appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_stress_card&type=revision&diff=924980328&oldid=924962819 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested changes

I've gone back through each of the sources several times, and the IP has some good points.

• The Psyweb.com article is not reliable; author is a freelance writer with no validated expertise other than being married to a vet; information about the card in his article is attributed to a 10-minute chat in a waiting room with an anonymous person; article cites no sources to support any of its claims.
• Stars & Stripes supports that Army never issued them.
• Snopes supports that the Navy issued them for a short time in the 1990s, that the cards only provided information on resources for the recruits, and that they were never used to get out of training; that when "some" recruits tried to use them during disciplining, the Navy stopped using the cards.
• Times does not contradict Snopes; it mentions a specific Navy base (Great Lakes) that issued the blue cards, and says recruits could hand the card to a trainer if they "feel blue" in order to get help, which corresponds with the wording on the card pictured in the Snopes article. The 3 sentences about the card in Times are in the context of the article about changes in military basic training and impact on military readiness.
• The policy pdf on recruiting trends makes no mention of the cards, but does connect to the greater context of the Times article.

Based on the reading of the sources, I suggest the following changes

1. Remove the "tensometer" image. It isn't the card that the sources support.
2. Change lead to The military stress card was a short-term experiment by the United States Navy to inform new recruits about available mental health resources. Although the cards were only issued for a brief period during the 1990s, the rumor that trainees in all services were issued cards that they could present to halt training or disciplining became an urban legend. Both Snopes.com and Stars and Stripes confirmed that a card to halt training was a myth., with cites from Times, Snopes, S&S
3. 2d para in lead: Whether urban legend or not, the purported use of the cards in boot camp is cited as evidence of the softening of the U. S. military forces, degrading readiness to fight. (removing PTSD claim which is supported only by the Psyweb page, use Times ref but not Psyweb)
4. In Background, remove Clinton reference. We only have support for "the 1990s", not enough to definitively say it was Clinton or Bush 1.

Pinging Bri and Dennis Bratland for input. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No time to respond fully but one or two things caught my eye. "One specific base, Great Lakes" happens to be where every Navy recruit gets sent for boot camp: Great Lakes Training Center. About the image, it might be useful to expand a bit and say that modern issued "Tensometer" cards exist, but make sure the article does not imply they are definitely the subject of the urban legend. -- Bri.public (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Bri.public, why include an image of a card that the article isn't about? It seems really misleading to readers, even if the caption says "this is not the card mentioned in the article". Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying there's more than one stress card, and it's OK to talk about all of them. Did you see my other comment here? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I did see the other comment, but we have no content or sources for anything except the Snopes picture described as "cards listed resources the newcomers could contact “if things pile[d] up.”" and Times text that matches the Snopes picture, "a "Blue Card," which helps them deal with stress. The card instructs a recruit to hand it over to a Navy trainer if he or she feels blue. "Thinking about running away?" it asks. "Help is less painful!". We have no content to support any other type of "stress" card, and I can't find any sources in order to add more; just basing it on the photo would be WP:OR. Obviously there was a "tensometer" card from at least one FSC, but a photo that shows it existed with no supporting content in the article doesn't make sense. Schazjmd (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My short answer is WP:SOFIXIT. To me these objections are, at best, reasons for minor changes in wording, to be more emphatic as to what is an established fact and what is a common misconception. There's nothing wrong with describing false or dubious beliefs -- we have articles on unicorns and Piltdown Man and so on -- and there's nothing wrong with covering related or similar topics even if the main topic of the article is a specific card issued for a very short time only by the Navy. We very much need to put the whole thing in broader context, such as discussing the the beliefs about the quality or supposed fragility of recruits that lay behind many of the misconceptions. Giving broad context is one of the primary goals of a good Wikipedia article; not an optional extra but a fundamental goal.

Since we do not have any copyright violations or WP:BLP violations, there's no good reasons for mass deletion of anything here. It's fixable, and should be fixed or given time to be fixed, per editing policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's probably helpful to realize that "military stress card" does not equal "Blues Cards". The Navy Blues Card was the probable origin, according to Snopes and Time, but the broader topic of a get out of jail free card is what is meant by the title "military stress card". We have a whole other card with a similar referral to help resources, the white Fleet & Family Support Center card at File:Military stress card.jpg which presumably at some point we can expand upon here. There's photos of two other cards at Quora which obviosly didn't come from nowhere (unless there's really a conspiracy to manufacture hoax cards!) which we can reasonably assume helped perpetuate the belief there was a services-wide card that could halt training. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, so we have obvious hoaxes somebody hacked up on a cheap printer [7][8] meant as a hazing prank, probably examples of urban legend ostentation, copying and making real a legend one has heard. Not really anything we can mention in the article, but fake cards exist at least in concept. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added a {{content}} tag, as there is very little which is accurately sourced and relevant. (The IP appealed to Jimbo. Jimbo hasn't responded yet, but he does seem to have a point.) The so-called "broader context" is not relevant to the actual cards or the hoax. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)