Talk:Ehren Watada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ehren Watada article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, keep.

I do not agree with everything about the war. But this man is a disgrace. To say he does not want to go is one thing. But to say that troops are slaughtering people (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198566,00.html) is wrong

He didn't say troops are intentionally slaughtering people, he said civilians are getting slaughtered. Given the high levels of civilian casualties, I can't really fault him for saying so. But in his statements, he avoids implicating the troops. ("The wholesale slaughter ... of the Iraqi people ... is wrong ...") Instead, he implicitly implicates the politicians who are behind this whole mess. -- MiguelMunoz 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

He says he is willing to go to the 'Stan (Afghanistan). Right! If they gave him orders to go there he would do the same thing. What a coward and a disgrace! He became an officer in the summer of 2003, months after the war began. He waited till his orders came before he wanted to resign. Did he just now decide the war was unjust? If the military does not buckle under the media pressure this yellow streaked bastard will go to jail for a long time.--Panzertank1 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. But you should try putting that in your blog or something. This page is to discuss the article for Ehren Watada. It's not to discuss Ehren Watada himself. Hong Qi Gong 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the DISCUSSION page, live with it.--Panzertank1 19:11, 14 June 2006

Why did you change my submission? What I added was truthful & correct.--Panzertank1 19:14, 14 June 2006

You should sign your comments. Hong Qi Gong 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my ID, Panzertank1. Now what is your problem with what I wrote? As an Asian-American military reserve officer this man is a disgrace to the military, to my country and to my people. He is a coward, prove me wrong. I served in Iraq and did what I had to do. Why can't this coward do this?--Panzertank1 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your patriotism and your disgust with Ehren Watada. But this is not the place to express them. Please read "What Wikipedia is not". It is not a soapbox, it is not a blog, and it is not a battleground. Hong Qi Gong 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a citizen of the United States?--Panzertank1 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal questions toward me can be asked here: User talk:HongQiGong. I can't guarantee I'll answer, though. Hong Qi Gong 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the DISCUSSION board. This is where we discuss things. This is what the forum is for! You are not supposed to give opinions in the article submission. Unlike communist controlled Red China- Hong Kong (freedom for 50 years after reunification, ya right!) where you live, we can give opinions here. I do not have a political officer looking over my shoulder. I can assume since you cannot reply that you are being watched. I understand totally. My family is from Tibet and the communists slaughtered my grandparents. My family escaped through India and then came to the US.

I am sure you are being told to support this anti-American officer by your superiors. Knowing the pressure put on you by these thugs I will disengage since I don’t want you ending up in a reeducation camp. Good luck!--Panzertank1 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. You are disgracing yourself. I tell you this politely so that you will learn how to behave on Wikipedia in the future. The relevant policies you are violating are WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:WWIN, among others. Thank you. Argyrios 05:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Had to change the article a little, only officers have a commission--216.52.73.254 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to directly comment on the subject of the article. Further support or criticism of Ehren Watada that is unrelated to improving the article will be removed, as will personal attacks against other editors. JDoorjam Talk 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"He is a coward, prove me wrong" He is standing up for what he believes in and has given a rational argument for it, please read it.

"Congratulations on your patriotism" noted anti-American Mark Twain once said "The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor" & "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it" taking this into consideration, who is the Patriot: Lt. Ehren or those like Panzertank1 who denounce him? -- LamontCranston 12:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Karada's reverts 2 Consciencious Objector 3 Vandalism 4 UCMJ

[edit] Karada's reverts

Okay, what the hell, I was using exactly the defn:

A conscientious objector is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of their conscience that are incompatible: (1) with being a combatant in military service, or (2) being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.

And my rationale:

(Watada by his own words is neither opposed to combatant status or participation in a combatant organization - he is not a consencious objector)

Watada has no general objection to war or combatant status - he would have been happy to go to Afghanistan. However, he has a specific dispute with the Iraq War, which does not qualify for conscientious objector. Moreover, you reverted my copyedits - have you any dispute with those? --Mmx1 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed

However, unlike enlistments, officers' commissions may be extended indefinitely at the discretion of the service; a well-known fact in the military.

to

However, the US Army may choose to extend its officers' commission at its discretion.

The "Well-known fact" label is very POV. I'm a Veteran of the Navy, and I never knew this until this case. How often have officers' commissions been involuntarily extended in, say, the last 50 years? If this happens often, perhaps it can be worded to say, "a common practice in war time." If this is rare, it should be stricken, as I'd say not much that is never practiced is ever "well-known."

Plus, considering all the stop-loss measures of late, the statement as made ("unlike enlistments") was not true. However, it is worth noting that the extensions are at the discretion of the military. WallyCuddeford 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consciencious Objector

As stated above, from the wiki article:

A conscientious objector is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of their conscience that are incompatible: (1) with being a combatant in military service, or (2) being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.

Which from his own statements is not true. He is neither opposed to being a combatant nor being part of a combatant organization - he states he would have been happy being deployed to Afghanistan. His reasons for resignation are legal principles related to Iraq only, not ethical principles related to war. --Mmx1 02:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I consider the distinction made as immaterial. The decision to kill someone is always a question of morality. IMO a conscientious objector may object to the morality based on the specific circumstances of the conflict. In this case, the legality of the war has played a substantial role in the right to kill another human.

You may consider the distinction immaterial, but the law doesn't. The article needs to be accurate. Watada didn't apply for CO status, which changes the way his case gets handled. -- MiguelMunoz 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions ... [he] applied for conscientious objector status. My intent was to group military staff who had chosen to make a stand against this war specifically. Maybe a different, more specific, category would be appropriate. Jayvdb 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he and his lawyers claim he didn't apply for CO status.[1]

Watada did not apply for conscientious objector status, according to his lawyer. “In order to qualify as a conscientious objector you have to be opposed to war in any form, and he is not. He’s just opposed to this war,” Seitz told the AP.

Also, [2] and a few others on google news. The current statement should remain in there as there's opposing POV....he claims he didn't want to apply but the Pentagon has stated that he did. Best to mention both view points.

There's a distinct difference between someone generally opposed to war on a moral basis and someone opposed to a specific war. --Mmx1 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A pentagon spokesman got his facts wrong when speaking to the press. This happens all the time. Aside from that one misstatement, there's no evidence Lt. Watada applied for CO status. If you want to put him in a category with CO applicants, you could say they all "refused orders" or something like that. There are many ways to refuse orders. Check out the Documentary Sir! No Sir! about soldiers who refused orders in Vietnam. -- MiguelMunoz 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I think this page was vandalized here Qrc2006 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCMJ

All the discussion on his guilt or innocence is moot until one reads the actual wording of the first set of laws he is subject to. He is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and will be tried in accordance with the Manual for Courts Marshall. Google these or look for them on Wikipedia. If you go by the letter of the law, he is 100% in the wrong. Accusations in the article of politicizing the charges are in effect, trying to politicize them in the reverse, favorable way for the defendant. His 'Constitutional Rights' are not an issue, they are trying to make it one. Civilian lawyers such as those in the ACLU, do not have a grasp on the real issue, only the political one. If this man truely believes in what he is saying, he will take his punishment for his offences, which are real. This article is so heavily biased it's not funny. Without a true opposing point of view, how can it have ANY credibility? Joe in Maine

This is not your blog, Joe in Maine. Your own conclusions on Ehren's case don't belong here (not even in the discussion page).
The article itself should not make its own cases about guilt or innocence, but rather should be an overview of both sides' cases, citing actual publicized arguments (as in, this is what experts are saying about Watada). I think the article does that well.
Please, either cite some instances of POV, or do not bring it up.WallyCuddeford 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)