Talk:Jeremy Hinzman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (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 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Topics 2 Minor edit 3 Names of Conflicts 4 www.jeremyhinzman.net 5 Arguments 6 Ex-soldiers ??? 7 Refugee status

[edit] Topics

I'm tagging this for cleanup because I object to the section "Argument Hinzman was a deserter, not a conscientious objector". Obviously there are differing views on Hinzman, but these should be distributed throughout the article and sourced.

As it stands I get a strong whiff of POV from that section, which is always a bad sign. --Saforrest 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This article's form needs to be revamped. --BadLeprechaun 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The category of Concientious Objector should be removed from the article,the main reason is that both the Canadian and American Governments have denied him this. The proper designation should be under desertion. DRCarroll 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

I changed the reference to AOS to MOS in the Military History portion. Army jobs are called Military Occupational Specialities (MOS).

I just took that off, sorry. I did so because it was unclear what MOS was and hardly anyone will think to come check the discussion page for it. Also, I don't know how the titles go exactly but that point it seems he went back to his same unit but got a new job (as armorer) so I don't know whether this counts as the same MOS... --BadLeprechaun 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Conflicts

Please see [[[1]] to know what I'm on about. I had previously gone back to my own edit you see there, from something similar to what User:72.148.109.35 has put up again. Now, 72.148.109.35, I don't want to get into a revert war with you, so let's discuss this. Notice that the terms I used in the article there are "war in Afghanistan" and "Iraq conflict" which I believe are rather neutral. They link up to articles discussing U.S. "invasions" and named as such, and these are the main pages on both conflicts as far as I can tell. I deliberately avoided actually writing down the word invasion there since it might be construed as giving the article an anti-war stance. I say this because though I myself definitely see them as invasions, others may call them "liberations" or what have you. That said, I avoided what I figured could be perceived as non-neutral language. I think your changes to the operations names used by the US military are unjustified, as they swing the bias the other way. "Enduring Freedom" sounds a lot like "liberation" and is pretty much on the opposite end of "invasion." The words "war" and "conflict" that I used are neutral, I think, since they denote neither a noble or a malicious intent on either side...

As for your claim that "There is only one war going on. It has different operation titles." This is just a matter of semantics to me. I would retort that in the "War on Communism," ie Cold War, we refer to the Vietnam WAR and to the Korean WAR separately, but then I understand that you could very well hit me with the term "World War II" encompassing Chinese-Japanese battles, Russian-Finnish battles, and fights in North Africa all in one. My point here is that it is simply clearer for any regular person reading this article to refer to Afghani and Iraqi conflicts separately and by these or similar names than to refer to less widely known operation titles.

So I'm suggesting we go back to the wording I had before 72.148.109.35's edits, but I will wait to hear other opinions first. 72.148.109.35 and others, what do you think? --BadLeprechaun 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.jeremyhinzman.net

This site is cited here and elsewhere on the Web, but I'm unable to get through to it from the U.S. It looks like Google does not return any search hits from within the domain (though plenty of links to it); Ask.com gives at least two hits. Any word on the situation? 70.15.116.59 05:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

I have a problem with that entire section. As much as I think Hinzman is a cowardly, unscrupulous piece of shit, the way that whole thing is written is about as POV as it can get. Equinox137 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-soldiers ???

A soldier that deserts his unit is NOT an "ex-soldier." A deserter has signed a contract with the military, voluntarily submitted himself/herself to military justice. Every recruit is educated on military law issues such as insubordination and desertion among other things before basic training even starts. A deserter still has an active arrest warrant and is subject to arrest on American soil until either arrested, death, or commutation/pardon by the President of the U.S. To address BadLeprechaun's edit - sorry, you're wrong. He still is in the U.S. Army and is still subject to military justice. The mere fact that the individual runs away because he/she doesn't "want to play anymore" doesn't change that individual's status and to state so here is not only inaccurate, it's POV. Equinox137 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. You're right, I didn't realize he was still technically a soldier till they caught him and he got some form of discharge (or commutation or death or whatnot) despite the fact that he is not actively engaged in anything soldierish. I think we both agree it's not a POV issue, but an error of fact/definition on my part. Keep up the editing! --BadLeprechaun (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refugee status

He isn't a refugee under Canadian law unless he's accepted, therefore he belongs in Category:Canadian people by legal status under Category:Applicants for refugee status in Canada. He applied therefore he was and is an applicant, and will always be one for the rest of this life (we categorize hockey players as players even after they retire if they retire). The only other solution is to change Category:Canadians deported to Category:People deported from Canada, which makes more sense as a title anways, and put him there. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He is no longer an applicant. He applied and his application was denied by the Canadian authorities. That's like claiming you're still an "applicant" for a job after they already turned you down. Equinox137 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)