Talk:Jeremy Hinzman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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 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 a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[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)