Talk:Jeremy Hinzman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeremy Hinzman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

South Dakota Low‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Topics[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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.

    To add, Hinzman is probably just some washout private who doesn't want to serve anymore.
    He deserves to be punished, at the minimum banning him from the country, revoking his
    passport, driver's license, ID, SS Card, etc.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous.209.66.200.141 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) DRCarroll 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit[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)[reply]

Names of Conflicts[edit]

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)[reply]

www.jeremyhinzman.net[edit]

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)[reply]

Arguments[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions based upon nationalistic or patriotic beliefs regarding one's personal concept of military servitude or duty therein. This section should be removed.BGinOC (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this helpful link: Wikipedia:Criticism - Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-soldiers ???[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Refugee status[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What's with all the "quotes"[edit]

The lead consists of several paragraphs of mostly quoted material, with no in-line attribution. I don't get it... RomaC (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Proceeding Summaries[edit]

The summaries of the legal proceedings were written as veiled attacks on the judges and prosecuting government. They had way too many verbatim quotes of news articles for an encyclopaedia article. I trimmed them down to what I think is a reasonable length. I'd suggest if anyone wants to go into more detail on one or more of the rulings they write it in terms of the legal precedents set and the political aftermath, not just what some newspaper editorial happened to think. Vagary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Vagary:

Thank you for your constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. I have followed them and made corrections in many places.

You made the suggestion that future writers “write [their edits] in terms of … the political aftermath.” I have followed that suggestion and made a heading called “Political Aftermath in 2007 and 2008”:

In the spirit of dialogue, I would also like to present you with some constructive criticism.

Wikipedia has a policy called "Preserve Information"[2].

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was only your haste which caused you to delete some important parts of the article, and inadvertently end up in conflict with that policy of Wikipedia.

For example, in your discussion you suggest that future editors “write [their edits] in terms of the legal precedents set” and yet, in seeming contradiction to your own suggestion, you, in your edit, deleted an important precedent set in 1995 by Federal Court Judge Arthur Stone.

According to legal opinions covered by the press (sources other than my self), that precedent has a direct bearing on Hinzman’s case, so I have replaced it where you deleted it.

Speaking of legal opinions covered by the press, I noticed that you also deleted the quote from Alex Neve, who taught international law at Osgoode Hall Law School and was awarded the Order of Canada

The fact that this quote in itself is from a person of prominence is enough to justify its presence in this article.

Speaking of quotes from persons of prominence: Lawrence Hill is a person of prominence because he won the international Commonwealth Writers' Prize, which is no small feat. Therefore his writings in the Ottawa Citizen are much more noteworthy than editorials written by average journalists.

TheWikipedia policy of "Preserve Information"[3] says,

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

• rephrase

• correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content

• move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)

• add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced

• request a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stood before I started working on it was heavily redundant with other articles, a quotefarm and not written in a tone suitable for an encyclopedia.

If people referenced have their own article, then only their most relevant, notable characteristic should be included in this article. (And peoples' names should only be stated in full and linked the first time they are referenced in each section.)
Newspaper articles should be summarized rather than quoted unless the actual text of the quote is particularly salient.
There is too much emphasis on House's statements to the press, many of which employ arguments that were ruled irrelevant in court.

I did cut a little too liberally; let's work together to get this article up to snuff!

Vagary (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Vagary.

Thank you for your participation in this collective process. Two heads are better than one.

You mentioned that ” There is too much emphasis on House's statements to the press, many of which employ arguments that were ruled irrelevant in court.”

In response to this, I again refer to the Wikipedia policy of "Preserve Information"[4] which suggests this as a solution: "Instead of removing, try to......add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced"

Readers who only want to know what is important to judges, and no one else, will go to the websites of the court record instead of coming to Wikipedia.

May I remind you of the following Wikipedia policy: “Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.”[5] This means that opinions of the judge are treated on an equal basis with opinions of the prosecuting lawyer. Wikipedia is there to record what is important to society as a whole, not just what is important to judges. Here is what society's opinion is in this case: A June 27, 2008 Angus Reid poll states that “64% of Canadians say they would agree to give these U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.” [6]

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not "Official" when the "Office" of the High Commissioner for Human Rights publishes a Resolution?[edit]

Greetings 68.204.29.215

You deleted a sentence in the article's sub heading entitled "Arguments." Please leave the sentence in place until this dispute is resolved:

Is it not "official" when the "Office" of the High Commissioner for Human Rights publishes a Resolution?

The international definition of conscientious objection officially broadened in 1998, when the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights document called “Conscientious objection to military service, United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/77” officially recognized that “persons [already] performing military service may develop conscientious objections.” ^[1]

^ "Conscientious objection to military service, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/77, Navigation to document: press "next" four times, see bottom listing, and at the right choose letter for language ("E" for English) Document: CHR 54th 4/22/1998E/CN.4/RES/1998/77". United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1998. Retrieved 2008-04-24.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly disagree that "the international definition of conscientious objection officially broadened on March 8, 1995." The UNHCR did not change the definition of conscientious objection, it asked more countries to recognize it. I do not see where the definition changed in the resolution cited. Please point out where and how the definition of "conscientious objection" was broadened in this resolution.

I also disagree with the sentence "The US has not recognized the UN definition of “conscientious objection” thus far." This is incorrect. The US does recognize conscientious objection -- see, e.g., Army Regulation 600-43 [www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_43.pdf]. What the US does not do is recognize selective conscientious objection, which is what Hinzman and other service members have attempted to claim. This is in line with the majority of nations, and though the UNHCR's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees [7] briefly discusses selective conscientious objection at paragraph 117, it is in an extremely limited sense.

There will be an article in an upcoming Military Law Review[8] that will provide further discussion on these and other points as they apply to the asylum bid filed by André Shepherd, an American deserter in Germany. For now, I'd like to see the justification for these sentences, or if they are without basis, I will be happy to edit them. Hzoi (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeremy Hinzman. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Conscientious objection to military service, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/77, Navigation to document: press "next" four times, see bottom listing, and at the right choose letter for language ("E" for English) Document: CHR 54th 4/22/1998E/CN.4/RES/1998/77". United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1998. Retrieved 2008-04-24.

[1]