This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
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
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
I question if this is relevant at all, but have left the general comment about the feudal obligation. This emphasizes that the ability to avoid fighting was dependent on money or influence. (I have resisted the temptation to compare and contrast this with the US Draft.)
I have removed the suggestion that conscientious objection was not an issue in feudal times becasue few peple fought in battles:-
(a) The suggestion that because the numbers in battles like Bosworth were small it wasn't an issue is silly. If you were a tenant of one of the Stanley family you were liable to service.
(b) The suggestion is based on ignorance of the historical position. I doubt if the concept of "conscientious objection" existed, but that was because it was not a state of mind that would exist in 1485, not because there were not many people required to fight. GBH21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conscientious objection existed at the time of the early crusades in the 1100s, never mind the 1400s. Plenty of people, including senior people in the Catholic Church, objected to the idea of military religious orders saying such things are contrary to Christian teaching and saying it was wrong to take up the sword for Jesus. Further, there was objection not just to fighting wars over Jerusalem in the name of Christ, but even paying for the likes of the Templars to do it through tithes, so even the concept of conscientious objection to military taxation is at least nine centuries old. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restated the definition and organized a short intro
"Conscientious objectors may distinguish between wars of offensive aggression and defensive wars. The opposition to war need not be absolute and total, but may depend on circumstance. The only real criterion that defines a conscientious objector is that the individual is sincerely following the dictates of their conscience."
"The legal status of conscientious objectors has varied over the years and from nation to nation. Many conscientious objectors have been imprisoned or executed for refusing to participate in wars. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that it is not necessary for a conscientious objector to have a religious basis for their beliefs."
I shortened this beginning into a current CO distinction compatible with most law that recognizes CO status. I tried to faithfully retain the core of CO as being the following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of one's conscience. And to avoid eliminating and existing expression.
"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. In the second case, the objection is to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service. Some conscientious objectors may consider themselves either pacifist or antimilitarist."
The statement, "or who objects to a particular war" may be a desired addition to both the distinction and legal definition of CO by some. There has been a long series of plaintiffs that claim particular types of war, or political convictions about a war or personal or societal circumstance with respect to a specific war should be included as valid reasons for CO status. However great their desire, this addition to the grounds for CO status has been repeatedly rejected in courts of both the European and Anglo-American legal traditions.
Some countries have evolved a separate approach avoiding conflict on the issue. At least one European country has legally defined participation in military service as only occurring on a voluntary basis. When this is so there is no legal or societal issue of conscience based objection or of legally granting of CO status. You just say, "no."
The original text also stated, “perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist)” that is untrue for many who object on religious grounds but are not part of the Historic Peace Churches and inconsistent with the later description of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I made the comment a sentence and added that “some” who believe…are…”
Lastly the comment about the US Supreme court broadening the grounds for CO status is true but it was decided in 1971 and the wiki text further excluded to mention its specific denial of any CO status based upon an objection to a specific war.
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
For the purpose of this article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
I'll remove the sentence altogether, if there are no objections. (There is no use of saying "In the countries where this status is recognized, the ECHR...") --Glimz 13:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
---If this isn't the right place to put this, I apologize. I'm a first time poster. I just wanted to let yall know that the C.O. site refers to C.O.s as "cowards." It's in the definition in the first couple of lines. I would change it, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Thought yall might want to get on top of that. MarjorieMazia01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I did the merge for this page I was uncertain as to what category to place it in. There are none at the moment and I believe that a category or categories should be added.
I have seen several requests on articles in Category:Military to clean up because there are 50 sub-categories and 50 articles in there ... I created Category "Politics about Military" to group topics like Military use of children, how people get drafted into the military, gender roles in the military, and related topics. This will still be in category military, through the new sub-category. AlMac|(talk)16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Peace Symbol is actually the ancient Norse or rune (symbol) for death. it is used commonly by persons who are practicing neo-pagans. Today the peace sign serves to represent a movement of people who have varied interests but gather under the umbrella of the peace sign, e.g. animal rights, environmentalists, etc. I cannot find any reference on the Internet to anyone that is a Conscientious Objector who accepts this sign to signify an individual. Please keep politics off this page, real Conscientious Objectors such as me find this offensive.
I take it you are refering to the use of the anti-war template, which is illistrated with the peace sign (which by the way orriginated with CND rather then with neo-pagans)? Are you against the template being on this page altogether (i.e are you saying that this article is not about an anti-war topic) or are you just against it because it has that sysbol on it?--JK the unwise09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template has nothing to do with Conscientious Objection and is a clear political statement against current war politics in Iraq. I challenge especially the legitimacy of especially these topics listed. What do they have to do with Conscientious Objection? STOP POSTING CLEARLY POLITICAL SYMBOLS SUCH AS THE PEACE SYMBOL ON THIS PAGE.
?--tomtrinity7 14:10, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)
Please try to read peoples comments and answer the questions they ask. Please see my comment bellow on why I beleive that an article on Conscientious Objection should be thought of as part of a the articles on the anti-war movment. Please see my comments on your talk page an on Template talk:Anti-war topics as to why I think use of the peace symbol is not POV pushing. --JK the unwise15:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what I say you continue to post the peace sign. Is this a dictatorship of the left? Since I am the only real certifiable C.O. posting here, this continuing struggle only shows how the biased dominate Wikipedia. There is no reasoning with this form of web disease!!! Get the Peace symbol off this page!!!
The peace symbol comes from the anti-war series box, which is being discussed below. Ideally, that discussion should focus on the relevance of the contents of the series box; whether the current peace symbol is included should perhaps be discussed on the anti-war template talk page. --LQ17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the person who originally started this mini conversation: you're blatantly using the "no true Scotsman fallacy". Wiki is meant to be NPOV, not based on who is a "true conscientious objector". LeobenConoy (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conscientious Objectors are not the Peace Movement
This page should not become the yellow pages for the current Peace Movement. A Conscientious Objector is an individual choice of conscience and is far different than being a member of a movement or simply anti-war. While there are groups that claim to be Pacifist, this does not mean they are Conscientious Objectors. For example, several Conscientious Objectors do and have served in the military. I am formally against this page becoming a listing for persons promoting the peace movement against current or future wars. There are other pages for this. Please list organizations that are not strictly Conscientious Objector organizations (e.g. C.C.C.O.) on an anti-war page.
Its fine for there to be a discussion here around the appropreatenes of counting a page about Conscientious objectors as part of the articles on opposition to war. However, If you have a problem with the anti-war template being on this page please only delete it from this pagedo notdelete the template itself. If you have a problem with the template being used at all or what appears on the template (for example the peace symbol) please raise this at Template talk:Anti-war topics.
On the topic of whether this page should have the template on it. I beleive that an article about Conscientious objectors is definatly an anti-war topic being as how the basis of Conscientious objection is opposition to the war one is being asked to fight in. It might be replyed that while this is true Conscientious objectors often only object to a particular war rather then all war. This is true but this is also true of all strands of anti-war thought. Note that many of the people who marched against the Iraq war did not nessisarly beleive there should be no wars at all (see the definition of anti-war which makes this clear).
Whose idea was it to remove over half of the text in the article? I've salvaged the most important bits about conscientious objection in different countries and moved it to another article. Is this some kind of censorship, or just an attempt to keep the article at a manageable size? 193.167.132.66 08:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that's me, User:JIP. Wikipedia accidentally signed me out, again. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems like vandalism or censorship to me. 207.67.132.123
How is it that there is so much from the US on this, and so little on elsewhere? Looks like a perfect school project to me, if someone wanted to do it. I don't know enough specifics, but I do know it was made very hard to be a CO in WW1 in Britain, with hard labour in appalling conditions that killed many. During WW2, they tended to be paramedics (the law was changed after people realised how awful WW1 was), as it put them in at least equal danger. There must be a lot on this. The US stuff was interesting, and I'm sure there must be someone looking for a project....16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at William Tebb - the assertion in the BMJ that the term was introduced into English law as a result of arguments over vaccination seems likely to be true.
I've seen various reputable sources state that the term originated in the medical field. This problem with this article could be solved by renaming—and reformatting, accordingly—this article to "Conscientious objection to military service". Gmarmstrong (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I'd missed it, so I added a cross-link. Someone else immediately removed it. There is a standard for cross-links, isn't there?
What's really needed is a complete re-edit. The topic in general, and then specifics for each juristiction. Not just states; Britain and Ireland had different rules in World War One.
I'm also not going to do anything so big. An opportunity for someone, though.
I added some historic background. Christian pacifism may be a minority option nowadays, but it was the original creed.
Exactly how it applied to legionaries is unclear. The martyrdom of the Theban Legion may have been because they refused to take part in pagan sacrefices. The whole event may also be fictitious, a 'pious legend'.
Early Christian pacifism is actually quite debatable. While it is true that the early Church did not condone war in any context (and the Orthodox Church maintained this stance as the Catholic Church adopted Just Wars), there is scarcely little evidence to show that Christians resisted conscription or that pagan legionaries, after converting to Christianity, objected to their profession. See Lee, A.D. War in Late Antiquity, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, ch. 7.1: "The Changing Religious Complexion of the Army".
The questions do seem as though they don't take into account atheist objectors, and also I remember hearing a sad account of one atheist who was abused when he tried to be an objector. Is there a history of atheist abuse? Do atheists tend to be allowed to be conscientious objectors, or do they end up being drafted anyways?
In United States v. Seeger 380 U. S. 163 (1965), the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the expression "religious training and belief" includes any belief which occupies the same place or role in your life as the belief of a Supreme Being does in the life of a believer. In Welsh v United States 398 U. S. 333 (1970), the Court ruled that the religious requirement could not be limited to religious based beliefs only, as this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. So in the United States, objection to military service that are based on moral or ethical beliefs (atheist, humanist, whatever) must be given equal weight as religious beliefs. TechBear05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Arndt Pekurinen had strong religious conviction, he based his objection on purely secular grounds. In this respected he could be parallelled by an atheist. He was executed in 1941 without trial because he refused from taking arms. It is widely assumed should Finland ever enter in a military crisis, a law stating death penalty from refusing to take arms will be stated immediately, and any conscientious objectors ordered to dangerous tasks, such as minesweeping.
Please give some reference for this. Finland has renounced death penalty and is party to several treaties forbidding the use of death penalty at all times. The Finnish constitution absolutely forbids the death penalty. There is no support for death penalty in any public documents on the crisis planning. The case of Arndt Pekurinen is widely condemned. At present, there are active legislative efforts by the government to clarify the war-time duties of person who have done the civil service. In the present legislation, the Finnish constitution states: "Everyone is liable to partake in the defence of the Fatherland, according to the law." The law in question is the law on readiness, which would come into force in a military or non-military crisis. According to this law, every man and woman between the ages of 16 and 65 is liable for labour duty as ordered by the labour authority. Such duty is non-military by nature and cannot be declined. However, the refusal for labour duty carries only a fine or up to six months in prison.
That for the legal standpoint. From the practical point of view, what would be the point? Finnish Defence Force has more than enough reservists as it stands. The repression of conscientous objectors would only serve to disrupt the internal cohesion and damage the Finnish image abroad. In any actual war, Finland would try to portray itself as a small democratic nation fighting against an invader. Considering the international impact of the measures you suggest, the introduction of death penalty would be counter-productive. --MPorciusCato09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the "right of the superior" in Finland to execute an inferior in wartime for "War cowardice". The actual practice of death penalty has been illegal for long, but has still been used during wartime since abolishment for several hundred. Also, the death trials run since the abolishment of the death penalty have been outside of peace-time law, which makes it entirely irrelevant to claim that it would be illegal, as it would per definition.--[User:Dragu|Dragu]] 22:32, 11 January 2007 (EET) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.239.206.172 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A conscientious objector is a person whose beliefs are incompatible with military service - perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist) - or who objects to a particular war. This may constitute a conflict with conscription or service.
I have added "military" in front of "service" in this paragraph because it needed to link to the right article (it linked to service in the economic sense, not even to the disambiguation page!). However, don't some conscientious objectors object to any sort of service that furthers the war effort, such as working in an ammunitions factory or serving as a medic in the armed forces? I'm not very knowledgeable about this, but shouldn't it be mentioned that conscientious objection isn't limited to "armed" service? Tamino18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about conscientious objection not related to war at all? For instance, the right of medical professionals to refuse to take part in an abortion, which (in the UK at least) is enshrined in law? 212.32.124.19813:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud Ali's refusal to be inducted into the army, but I'm not sure I would classify him as a "conscientious objector." I don't believe he ever filed for conscientious objector status or claimed to be a pacifist. He certainly was willing to go to jail rather than serve in the military, but I was never clear about what aspect of his religion he used as the basis of his claim.
Ali warrants inclusion because: he called himself a conscientious objector; he claimed religion as his official reason for conscientious objection; his publicly stated reason was race (he said skin colour was involved in the Vietnam War and as a black man he would not support a white war against brown people when black people at home were denied human rights) meaning his stated reasons were social and humanist; he was a man who made a living from voluntary participation in violence - i.e. not a pacifist - but who objected to supporting a war; because he became a significant figure in the civil rights movement that was objecting to war; his objection is not straightforward and makes a useful case study in conscientious objection. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, pooched the Edit Summary.) I changed it from 'army chaplains' to 'military chaplains' for the fact that the branches of the US Military have their own Chaplains. I would assume an Air Force member would possibly go infront of Air Force Chaplains, though it may be more of a matter of what Chaplains are available. If for some reason only Army chaplains are used, it may be best to make that more clear and capitalize 'Army'.--Moriar23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The true Commander of all military forces in Iran is his leader(currently Khameni). The leader of Iran is Waley Faqih(Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists). There some people who refuse to serve in military due to their objections to this newly added feature to shiism(They belive Welayat Faqih is made up like Bahism and Wahhabism by Jews). In 2002 one of those guys send a letter to leader asking permiting him to marry arguing he has reached puberty and no longer could resist abstinence( It is a great sin in Islam to do sex without marrying). An Objector loses all his social rights in Iran. Surprisingly the leader accepted to let them marry. But officially if such persons are caught they will be prisoned for around 3-4 years.You can serve your draft in prison but the military judge can punish you more months. For some years the draft in Iran was sold officially from 2 to 4 thousond dallars,but this trade is stopped after recent oil boom. But Iranian who are aboard for more than two years can still buy it 5000 dollars. You can also lend 16000 dollars to government and get your passport. if you dont return you will lose your money.
The editor who prefers to leave the {{Anti-war}} template off of the article page suggested on my talk page that there had been agreement here to remove it. It's not that clear to me from reading this page that there was such a consensus and I would like to open the discussion for broader input. I don't feel a big stake in either keeping it or removing it; I am more concerned about the continual removal without edit summary or other comment. Some questions that come to my mind are:
In what ways is the anti-war template incompatible with this page?
In what ways is the anti-war template appropriate for this page?
If the consensus is to remove it, should Conscientious objectors be removed from the template also? The editors of the template must feel it is a significant anti-war topic.
The anti-war template has nothing to do with C.O.'s, it is a devisive and political symbol that does not serve to represent C.O.'s in theory nor practice. For example, I was awarded C.O. status in the military for religious reasons; by serving and by my support of the current war in Iraq shows that being a C.O. is not an anti-war topic. Being a C.O. is a position of conscience or in my case, one of faith. I share nothing in common with today's anti-war activist and resent being given this devisive mark and label to represent all C.O.'s. The peace symbol has become a signifer as an umbrella for radical political groups. The peace symbol should be removed altogether, as well as the anti-war reference, neither has any place here. Leave Conscientious Objection to those who know what it means. My problem with you Mr. Harder is you have no position and therefore should have no say; your only position here is the same as many others, that you consider yourself a wiki-policeman rather than a scholar on the subject. Do we now rule by consensus rather than the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.145.116 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the fact that this is a point of contention in the first place to be somewhat amusing, since by and large, the term "conscientious objector" is used to describe those opposed to wars. So I support having the anti-war template on the page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your amusement come from your misunderstanding and subsequent misinterpretation of the term. A C.O. is not anti-war, the position is more complex then that. Many C.O.'s have served this country during times of war. My discharge papers from the US Military state "Honorable Discharge." This was after being shackled, beaten and photographed for the amusement of those who could not accept my position. I had bruises on my body and I live with this knowledge now that I have to deal now with your "amusement." A position is backed up by sources, your support appears to be backed by something else? Being an activist
is an a posteriori consideration to being a C.O. A C.O. is not an activist and is not anti-war. As a C.O. I support the current war in Iraq, could your non-support of the war be your motive for your support of the template? If you want to be an activist, do it somewhere else and leave the conscientious objection to the conscientious objectors. This is why wikipedia gets so much criticism because the scholars or actors who know the subject first-hand are consistently edited by persons with agendas or little to no knowledge of the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.145.116 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I am interpreting this discussion correctly, 209.30.145.116 objects to the anti-war template because it includes topics about the activities of anti-war activists, some of whom are seen in a bad light as radicals. In addition, the peace symbol is negatively associated with anti-war activism. 209.30.145.116 sees conscientious objection as separate and distinct from activism and the two should not be confused. To Schuminweb, objecting to military service implies objecting to war which is equivalent to anti-war. The latter position, as Schuminweb notes, is logical. The former position is based on personal experience; that view is not developed in the article itself. I have some empathy for that position: I believe a good segment of WWII conscientious objectors in North America do not identify with today's anti-war movement (I have no supporting source though) while the following generation is more activist.
I personally don't have a problem with the peace symbol and at this point am leaning toward inclusion of the template.
With respect to the consensus question, it is the prefered Wikipedia route to decision making. The process works best when we assume good faith of other editors and invite their contributions, even if we might disagree. It's disappointing be told that my thoughts aren't wanted here. Of the 35 references and notes listed at the end of the article, I added 21 by my count, so my contributions to the sourced parts of this article have been non-trivial. JonHarder03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am calling you out Mr. Harder and the others, what are your credentials and interest in editing here? Are you a conscientious objector? Are you interested in the subject matter? Are you an activist? There is no good faith here since the template dicatates the process; the page with the photo of the C.O. at the top of the page better demonstrates that being a C.O. is an INDIVIDUAL choice of conscience and has no affiliations other than an internal philosophy of mind, religion or self. If there was good faith here, the decision to remove the template would be honored and we would not be having this conversation. Should the C.O.s maintain their own reputation or allow revisional web users and wiki-police dictate their public perception with peace symbols and the like? Simply put, I am a C.O.; are you? According to you I am nothing more than a "vandal", see the irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.217.37 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to stay on-topic here, I think what you are saying is that since conscientious objection is an individual, personal choice it shouldn't be associated with the anti-war template because that template is for organized anti-war movements. Is that what you are trying to say? As for honoring a past decision on this page, I believe it is: JK the unwise promised not remove the template until there has been more discussion, and I believe he has honored that. Whether and editor of this article is a CO or not, an activist or not, all are welcome to contribute to making this a better article and to join in the discussion. Excellent, dedicated editors will be found among all of those persuasions. JonHarder01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. By your own claims you cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. None of you know what it means to be a C.O., so you are providing web-myths to validate your revisionist claims. There is no agreement or middle ground between the truth and a lie. The template is the serpent in this garden of wiki-lies. So what is the truth Mr. Harder, are you an activist or a C.O.? Why not let a C.O. speak for the C.O.'s? The truth of conscientious objection has nothing to do with the template or the peace symbol. The template and peace symbol are web-lies when associated with conscientious objection and I call them what they are. Why would you support a lie Mr. Harder? Not in my house! C.O.'s are people, not symbols! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.217.37 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we have exhausted the avenue of discussion and no frutiful progress can be made toward consensus. You are firm in your stand that the template cannot appear on the article page. I decline to label myself as either a CO or an activist; I believe my history of edits are sufficient to determine my merits as an editor.
I am not convinced by your arguments that the template should remain out of the article. I will stand with Schuminweb in this discussion and support its continued inclusion. Since no other editor appears to be supporting your view, it would be helpful for you to explain the situation to an advocate who can help you present your views in a more neutral manner. I urge you to do so. I will also be asking for an outside opinion of my role in this discussion and suggestions for the next steps, which I presume will involve replacing the template and putting this matter to rest for some months before it is revisited. JonHarder01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that, the only certifiable C.O. needs an advocate for the C.O. page! I get it...the tyranny of the peace majority! Your agenda is so apparent it stinks, go post on the anti-war page and keep your crap off this page! I am conscientiously objecting to the non-conscientious objectors dictating their collective activist peace agenda to a real C.O.! I have an idea, let's go to the native american wiki-page and insist they are all communists...think they would stand for it? The only thing that will be put to rest is your inability to objectively look at the truth! You want neutrality move to Switzerland!
I have a question, I don't understand this: "For example, I was awarded C.O. status in the military for religious reasons; by serving and by my support of the current war in Iraq shows that being a C.O. is not an anti-war topic." If you served in the military, you are not a conscientious objector. A conscientious objector (CO) is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of his or her conscience that are incompatible with being a combatant in military service, or being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. (from the article). Hence, you are trying to cmail that you are a C.O. that is serving in the military. That should be impossible. You are also saying that a C.O can refuse to serve in the military, but still support a war. This is of course completely true. I would however want to say that somebody that supports war but still claims to have moral reasons not to serve in the army would then take up a possibly rather self-contradictory and hypocritical standpoint. --Regebro07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you have not done your research, there are several C.O.s serving in the military, there is one in the Navy that is a helicopter mechanic but refuses to load bombs or ammunition on the helicopters. Each CO draws the line in certain areas which again proves there is no complete definition of a CO; again it is an INDIVIDUAL choice! That's the problem with you wiki-people, you attempt to classify what cannot be classified, which is the same difficulty the military has. Only the military understands the complexity, respect, law, and persons involved, while wiki-posters do not. As for your last statement Regebro, tell that to the soldiers who served for Hitler, Pol Pot and the like, the difference between serving your country and serving the dictates of your conscience are a well defined area of law since Nuremberg. You cannot understand the complexities until you go through the process and discernment of being a C.O. As far as being self-contradictory or hypocritical, being the only US soldier during the period of 1988-Present to be awarded an Honorable Discharge means that the US military didnt think so. Why not turn your interest in this topic into something constructive rather than condemning people you dont understand with rhetoric we COs have heard a million times, you forgot "Communist, Coward, etc." Your logic follows....If Native Americans all live in tribes, then that makes them all communists, right? Just because a web entry is in writing doesnt make the lie true! COs are not anti-war, the one thing I always hear from fellow COs is that not one CO is like another, they all have their own reasons for their decisions. God Bless America for allowing me to live in a country that honors my decisions rather than hanging me in the public square! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.217.37 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there are several C.O.s serving in the military". You still don't explain how somebody who refuses to serve in the military can serve in the military. --Regebro16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By my understanding, being a C.O. doesn't necessarily preclude someone from military service - merely from the part of military service to which they hold the concientous objection - i.e., combat, etc. - Geayzus03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that if you say "Since it is wrong to kill people, I refuse to kill people. Instead I will help you kill people." and still be viewed as an objector? --Regebro11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Regebro, You are stretching your moral arguement with a giant leap by saying, "If A then B, if not B then C." You have begun the process of C.O. discernment, but try not to make any hasty judgments until you have followed the logic or reasoning of your own conscience. Not everyman reaches the same conclusions, some can do this in months, for others it takes years. Remember that it was Moses who killed a man in retaliation for an attack on his brethern, despite this murder God chose Moses to deliver the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." In the Old Testament it states, "The Lord is a Man of War"; then the Lord appears in person in the New Testament declaring, "Anyone that hates their brother is a murderer." Then in Revelation He delclares that, "It is for the Lord to decide to make war." God reaches each of us for his own purpose, while you may have trouble understanding that not all parts do the same job, the parts will in the end work for the greater of the whole by Providence (the first cause). You have not reasoned past or approached the topic of freewill or fate(or what Aquinas called the second cause). Now you are beginning to understand the nuanaces of moral law. Jacob wrestled with an Angel, while philsophers posit, "The unexamined life is not worth living." YOu cannot make giant steps from A to Z, there are still 24 other letters in the alphabet. (unsigned)
Hi all, I believe that the question might be considered from another direction: Does inclusion of a series box mean that the article is only and wholly a subset of that series box; or does it just indicate that the series box is one helpful facet through which to view the article. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes notes that "Article series boxes (or navigational templates) are boxes with links to other related articles." In this instance, I think it's accurate to say that conscientious objection is related to antiwar topics, because a number of people opt for CO status as part of an antiwar movement, and/or join other antiwar movements afterwards.
However, the users above correctly point out that COs have a lot of reasons, of which anti-war is only one (and not necessarily the major one), for choosing that status. I completely understand the concerns -- also described in [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes]] -- that inclusion of the "anti-war topics" series box might appear to bias the article. (See "Often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Many templates go to WP:TFD because they appear to push POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more series boxes might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point.") To me, I think this article needs a military service series template as well as anti-war template; those two templates together would be balanced and not, I think, overbearing. (As for arrangement, I would put the military service template at the top, a reflection of the chronology and the fact that all COs are or were in military service, while not all COs are or were in the anti-war movement.) I'm looking for an appropriate military service template and having trouble finding one -- we may need to develop one. I'd be happy to help, if someone wants to put in a draft in a sandbox somewhere. --LQ17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the peace symbol, people were objecting to it several months ago (see above). It seems to me that we ought to discuss, here, the inclusion of the series box itself -- its relevance and usefulness -- and not focus on the specifics of the series box. That could be discussed on the anti-war template talk page. --LQ17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'm tempted not to get envolved in this discusion - most stuff seems to have been said and a still can't quite fathom how conscientious objection could be thought of as anything other then anti-war? 70.239.217.37 say's that "COs are not anti-war, the one thing I always hear from fellow COs is that not one CO is like another, they all have their own reasons for their decisions" which sounds fair enough except if we remember what the all have their own reasons for; i.e. not fighting in (or taking part to whatever extent) millitary conflicts. At the very least this seems to involve them personaly objecting to, i.e. being against, military conflict. That is they are (at least on a personal level) anti-war.
So far so still talking past each other ... the only angle I can get on this is possibly that it stems from a differnt understanding of the term "anti-war". To me it seems like a relativly neutral term positing only opposition to war rather then suggesting any particular reasons for it. Prehaps if the template was renamed 'opposition to wars' it might be less contensious.
Resolution; I agree with LQ that having a military service template might help ease worries of POV. Also prehaps the template name could be changed to 'opposition to wars' and the symbol could be changed to a differnt one (though I doubt their is a less contentios image). LQ is right to suggest that such a conversation should take place at the anti-war template talk page--JK the unwise18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WHY NOT LEAVE THE PAGE AS IT STANDS NOW, WITH A PHOTO OF A REAL CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR?!? Notice "Objector" is not a plural! By including the two templates you are providing the choice, but this is just the beginning of the C.O. question. I couldnt agree with Lquilter more with one adjustment: the links at the bottom of the page is where template links belong. There are two questions here: 1.) That damn peace symbol; and 2.) The two templates. I support putting the links for the templates at the bottom of the page without the templates so they do not dominate or misinterpret the page or the topic; and as for that peace symbol, drop it! It has no place here, it is a devisive and contentious symbol, it would be the same as placing a bomb icon on the military template. The military does a lot more than dropping bombs! I am not opposed to wars and I am a real C.O.! Put the choices at the bottom of the page and stop taking away the true meaning of the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.92.248.157 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
In reply to "it would be the same as placing a bomb icon on the military template", The War template does have a picture of a tank on it! Even more relavantly the Facism template template does have a symbol used by some facists on, namely the Fasces. Symbols on templates are not promotionaly and they can rarely cover the entire spectrum of the subjects in the template. This argument should take place (and allready has to some extent) at anti-war template talk page.
A question to User:68.92.248.157 you may not oppose war in general but is it incorrect to say that you refused to fight in (or limited the amount you were prepared to take part in) the particular war that you conscientiously objected to because you objected to it? And is it not thus true that you were anti-it, i.e that with regard to that particular war you were 'anti-war'? If not in what sense did you conscientiously object? As LQ has rightly said inclusion of a series box does not imply that the article is only and wholly a subset of that series box. For example, there is an article in the series box on Opposition to the War of 1812 but having the series box in that article does not imply that the people who opposed the war of 1812 opposed all wars.
Round and round you go, where you stop no one knows??? None of you are here for solutions, you are here for agendas. How about this for a proposal, that you eliminate the entire page and the conscientious objector, then your nuclear reasoning will come to the end you require. None of you are here to know the true essence of a conscientious objector, you are here to cast dispersion and play Hamm and Clov, see Beckett's "Endgame". Who is the king and who is the pawn, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.165.71 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:70.253.165.71 -- Would including a "military service" template, in addition to the "anti-war template", make it clear enough, in your opinion, that CO as a topic is not associated with any single particular movement or ideology? I think that removing the template isn't the right response, because the problem is that it is in some instances associated with "anti-war", so that template is relevant. Modifying the template so it doesn't have the peace sign might be one solution, but it's not something we can (or should) resolve over just this one article. You're right to point out that the peace-sign affiliation with a movement is not always relevant, and especially since this can be a contentious topic, we should avoid appearance of POV where there is none. So the open question is, would adding a "military service" template remedy the possible appearance of bias and connection; if not, are there other possible changes you (or anyone else) could suggest? --LQ21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a specific template in mind for a second one, but I would not object to the {{conscription}} template. In fact, conscientious objector probably needs to be added to that template. What do others think of the conscription template? Finally, if the image is the main sticking point, we could opt for the anti-war template with a different image just for this article. JonHardertalk03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take your fucking C.O. fiction and stick it, I am out of here, none of you want to understand the topic, you only want the consensus of your lies, goodbye! It is no wonder no true academic takes this site seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.165.71 (talk • contribs) 18:35, December 14, 2006
Why are you getting so mad? People are trying to give you time to put your argument and currently the template has been left off the page. If we didn't care what you think then we would have kept replacing the template!--JK the unwise14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so, despite being the "only real certifiable" Conscientious Objectors posting here - with unique insights into the views of other Objectors - it seems that 70.253.165.71 never did address Regebro's reasoned and telling comment (11:49, 12 December 2006): So you mean that if you say, "Since it is wrong to kill people, I refuse to kill people. Instead I will help you kill people." And still be viewed as an objector?
From here in 2014, could it not be said that the INDIVIDUAL views of 70.253.165.71 where little more than Sophistry? Or 'reasoning' that - while seemingly correct - is subtly deceptive. 78.147.86.207 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have played itself out. Let me try to summarize the main points and propose the next steps:
There appears to be a general feeling, save for the anonymous contributor, that the anti-war series template is applicable to this article.
Action: it can be reinstated by any editor wishing to replace it.
There was some objection to placing the series box at the top. Vertical style boxes typically are placed at or near the top; horizontal style boxes appear at the bottom.
Action: the template should be returned at or near the top.
There was discussion about the peace symbol image in the template representing a particular point of view. Some options for addressing this were discussed but no consensus formed.
Action: those interested in this issue should continue the dialogue on the anti-war template talk page.
It was suggested that a second series box could be added for balance. Two suggestions where offered, template:War and template:Conscription, but no consensus reached.
Action: more discussion is needed to determine if a second series box would be helpful and which template that would be.
Did I miss any major issue here? There was some discussion about conscientious objectors in active military service, but I believe that was really a separate issue, not directly related to the series box discussion. JonHardertalk17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tx for the summary. I think that's basically it with one minor exception. I had suggested that inclusion of a military service template, in addition to the antiwar (peace sign) template, might solve potential POV appearance from the antiwar (peace sign) template. I also think it would just be appropriate. But, I don't really feel qualified to take it on right now. If someone else gets something started I'll contribute. --lquilter08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“The peace symbol has become a signifer as an umbrella for radical political groups. The peace symbol should be removed altogether, as well as the anti-war reference, neither has any place here”. Leaving aside the high and mighty tone from defenders of the Matrix - are not such remarks a prime example of sophistry? 78.147.92.130 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Since I am the only real certifiable C.O. posting here, this continuing struggle only shows how the biased dominate Wikipedia. There is no reasoning with this form of web disease!!! Get the Peace symbol off this page!!!”
Another comment from a Matrix cheer-leader. And yet, if the Matrix can be likened to a system, then that system can be considered our enemy. When you're inside, look around, what do you see? Certain Wikipedia Editors and fake Conscientious Objectors? The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. For are not many of them so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it?
JK the Unwise this is your last warning. If you continue to print neutral wiki-lies, you will be blocked from entering the Kingdom of Heaven for promoting collective lies that are contrary to the Word of God. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matt. 16:11) - Signed, Elijah, 09:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.136.189 (talk • contribs) 15:55 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Any reference to conscientious-objectors who have tried to gain that status after enlisting should be removed. If you willingly enlist in a Military service you cannont be a C-O because you have already agreed to being in possible combat or cambat area. Izzy198523:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Izzy, you are being "more Catholic than the pope" here. The U.S. military, for example, sometimes grants C.O. status to someone who has a change of conviction after they are already serving. It takes a very strong, clear case, because the prima facie evidence is clearly against them, but it does happen. - Jmabel | Talk08:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CO is a specific legal status granted by the US military to folks already serving, as well as folks drafted and not yet serving. The article actually explains this. --LQ20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True it is granted >rarely<. But legally when you sign up for service, you discredit any future attempts to gain CO status because you have consented to possible combat. I cant find the figures at the moment but, look at the applications compared to grantings over the past 10 years. Izzy198509:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an American, but an international ensyclopedia. In most Western countries, (e.g. all EU countries), the right for conscientious objection is a human right based on international law. In this sense, the conscientious objection is not a phenomenon of national law but based on international justice. Because several nations reserve the right of the military persons to object to their service on moral grounds, it should be mentioned in this article. In addition, regardless what their previous moral convictions, persons may honestly change their moral beliefs. Although a particular country might refuse this right, such persons still remain COs and belong to the scope of this article.--MPorciusCato10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then this notion of COs who are already in the service of the United States who wish to gain CO status, should be added to the Section on the United States. Izzy198522:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what text you're talking about, or what you're talking about doing with it. If it's information about people in the military wishing to withdraw, change service, or get a different assignment based on CO, then that can be applicable to many countries, including the US; it should be handled in general discussion, not just in the US. (Although it would probably be appropriate to say in the US section that in-service CO status is only rarely granted.) --LQ23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, the situation is that Conscientious Objection is the only ground on which - AS OF RIGHT - a contracted serviceperson can leave the military before time. Everything else is discretionary. The UK, however, is the only EU country with this provision. See Professional Soldiers and the Right to Conscientious Objection in the European Unio, October 2008, available from War Resisters' International http://wri-irg.org/pdf/eu-rtba2008update-en.pdfHoward Clark (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is on whether one can legally become recognised as a CO after volunteering for military service. That does not cover the situation of someone simply becoming a CO after volunteering. If, for examples, a serving soldier has a religious conversion or is affected by their experiences on the battle field and so becomes of the the strong view that they disagree with violent conflict because of their conscience, and object to continuing in violent conflict, then that person is a conscientious objector regardless of whether the law or the military says they are or are not. One can don a uniform, kill people, then become a conscientious objector no matter what anyone else says or thinks. Being a conscientious objector is not just a legal position, it is also a personal position. Hence Izzy1985's appeal that a serving militant cannot become a CO cannot stand. (Anyway, I think Izzy1985's view was a personal moral view rather than a logical or legal one - and humanity would be in a sorry state if people were not allowed to regret their actions or change their opinions, whether hypocritical or not.) SandJ-on-WP (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be an external link to the outstanding international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a complete updated list of all signatories, 1993 to 2007), official version with one of these website addresses: http://www.themanifesto.info (Manifesto against conscription and the military system)
http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm (Manifesto against conscription and the military system)
because it has already become part of the history of conscientious objectors.
Chrbartolf12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf[reply]
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with geographic terms like "Indian religions" is that these religions are not confined to the Indian subcontinent, and are not even necessarily closely associated with India. How is Zen -- a sect that was born in China and is, in its modern form, often thought of as Japanese -- an "Indian" religion? That's like calling Mormonism a Middle Eastern religion. 81.86.133.4514:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph seems to imply that conscientious objectors who are denied the opportunity of alternative service resort to "draft dodging." That was not my experience as an objector to the Vietnam war. My experience was that pacifists who were denied conscientious objector status usually went to prison for refusing induction. Non-pacifists whose objections were based on principled political beliefs were also imprisoned. "Draft dodging" was resorted to by individuals who objected to fighting a particular war but were uncertain as to their religious or political beliefs — for example, many opponents of the Vietnam War would have been willing to serve in World War II. I may rewrite the paragraph if no one has an opposing view. Bwotte (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Introduction section: "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief"
Two paragraphs down: "In the United States, there are three criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. [...] Second, he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief"
This is impossible - if the opposition must be based on religious belief, it can't have been broadened beyond religious belief, and vice versa! Perhaps someone who knows which of the claims is true could be kind enough to remove the false one. 81.86.133.4514:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part where there's a numbered list which displays questions for conscientious objectors to answer does not display correctly, because the orange/yellow box to the immediate left is overlapping the numbers. I'm not sure how to correct, or I would do it myself right now 24.251.84.22111:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration to Canada
Some objectors to the Iraq War chose Canada as a place of refuge in part because of the closeness of the Canada–United States border, entry to Canada is easy and because of the precedence set by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in allowing draft dodgers into Canada without prosecution during the Vietnam War.
The context of this paragraph, from section 3.1.1 (Immigration to Canada), is drafties, and I know that neither of Iraq Wars were draft wars. Looking at the article history it has been that way for at least a month (if not longer). I am thinking that should be Vietnam War, but since I know nothing about the subject, just wanted to make sure. BeckyAnne(talk)06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the heading line about a week ago to read "Emigration", and had the edit reverted by JonHarder. I've restored it to Emigration. The prepositional choice (to/from) has no bearing here, the difference is made by whether the focus is on the origin or the destination. Since it's a subsection on American Objectors, I believe the fact that they're leaving the US is more significant than the fact that they're entering Canada. If we were talking about Objectors from multiple places taking refuge in Canada, immigration would be the correct term, and the heading should go under Canada's section. Lorpius Prime (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, three Quakers were sentenced to death for refusing to bear arms in the Confederate Army, but a firing squad refused to fire on them after one called out "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" as Jesus had on the cross. They were pardoned and marched into the Battle of Gettysburg with rifles strapped onto their bodies, emerging unscathed.
A quick Google search ( http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/0304/fwcc_peace_conf.htm ) shows a variation of this story, complete with a Quaker person, conscientious objection, a botched execution, a firearm put on to someone, and Gettysburg. This to me indicates very strongly the entire story is hearsay (regardless of the fact the website's story was blatant hearsay also), and at the very least, unverifiable considering there's no additional information I can get. So, I removed the passage, unless someone wants to prove it's true. LeobenConoy (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Current legal situation" section talks about filing CO claims upon initial Selective Service System registration. This is misleading, as the U.S. SSS does not in fact currently provide a mechanism for registering as a CO (this is mentioned at Conscription in the United States). The "Claim documentation Form - Conscientious Objector" (SSS Form 22) is only officially accepted once the individual has actually been instructed to report; if one attempts to send it in preemptively with the SSS registration, it is returned with a letter informing the individual that the SSS does not register CO status at this time. (Some digging around at my parents' house could probably find my copy of said letter.) John Darrow (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally changed the quote under Muhammad Ali's photo to avoid writing out the n-word (the offensive ethnic slur). Someone went in just now and changed the link from [[The n-word|n****r]] to use the actual word — giving "fixing double redirect" as their reason. I stand by my original edit, and my belief that there is no need to write out the ethnic slur here, even in a quotation (or a wikilink). Some may call me a prude (and I probably am), but I think it's perfectly proper to avoid writing words like this — even in markup text — if a less blatantly offensive alternative is available (as is the case here). Although I'm strongly tempted to just go in and boldly revert the text in question back to what I originally wrote, I decided it would be better to ask others for their opinions. What do you think? Richwales (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did he say "...they never called me a n****r"? Or did he actually use the word? C. Adam Kuhn (talk) 12:23, 31 Oct 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be this idea around that the word itself is sort of impure. Of course this, begging your pardon, (prude, indeed) nonsense. Being a Catholic I may not say "Crucifix!", but nothing is wrong here too to write that I may not say it. If Mr Ali said, "they never called me with the word that is so offensive that I do not want to utter it, and which begins in N", we should write that. If he said, "they never called me nigger", we should write that.--93.133.225.255 (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obama and the concept of Selective Conscientious Objection
I noticed that you deleted an entire paragraph from the section “Selective conscientious objection” giving the reason “Obama's speech about going to war in Iraq not relevant to conscientious objection”
I should point out that the paragraph was not about the entire speech, but rather one statement/concept within that speech. That concept can be described as “selectively objecting” to some wars but not all wars. That concept was clearly stated in that speech, when Obama stated "I don't oppose all wars....What I am opposed to is a dumb war…"
Without having been give specifics, I am unable to discern your specific reason for deletion. But below are four guesses:
1. Semantics:
I’m wondering if you troubled by the semantics and terminology of the word “conscientious objector. Is this a question of being true to the traditional common usage of the term “conscientious objector” as has been established through its long history? If so, then I would like to remind you that all language is in a continual state of evolution.
Perhaps you would like to see a distinction made between the common usage of the term as used in Basic English, and the Legal English usage of the term.
Obama used the word, “oppose,” which is similar to the word “object” The word “object” is found in the title of the entire article “conscientious objector.”
Also, the concept of “selectivity” is clearly there in the quote. The title of this section has the word “selective” in it.
2. Practice versus theory of Obama
I am wondering whether you were troubled by the practice versus the theory of Obama.
To clarify my paragraph, (in response to what I am guessing your objection to be) I will now add content about Clifford Cornell.
There are a substantial number of Wikipedia editors who follow the philosophy of inclusionism. Part of that philosophy is that is better to add to an article and clarify it, rather than delete it. See WP:NOTPAPER
Hi, thanks for setting out your reasons so clearly, I appreciate it! I think the point is that the paragraph confuses being selectively anti-war with being a selective conscientious objector. Conscientious objection is defined by the article's lead paragraph as a refusal to participate by individuals in combat. This is not the same as simply 'objecting' to a war, and is a much more narrowly-defined type of opposition. Obama's speech does not discuss the issue of individuals' refusal to participate in combat: it simply considers the much broader question of whether Iraq should be invaded, and was made in the context of a protest against Congress's resolution authorizing the invasion. The quotation ("I don't oppose all wars....What I am opposed to is a dumb war") and indeed the entire speech say nothing about conscientious objection itself, but are simply a general expression of Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq. Whether this opposition is selective or not does not change its irrelevance to the article.
The new material on Clifford Cornell is relevant but, for the reasons given above, I don't think the first part of the paragraph (ie the bit that I deleted) can be taken as a statement of Obama's policy or ideological stance towards conscientious objection. The 2002 speech is not, therefore, relevant to Cornell's case. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings NotFromUtrecht
I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. I appreciate that you have attempted to clarify yourself.
I, too, am interested in clarity as you will see below:
About two kinds of objection:
First, in your reply to me you italicized the word “individual.”
My response: Obama used the word “I,” thus grammatically referring to himself as an “individual.”
Second, you said, “Obama’s speech …simply considers the much broader question of whether Iraq should be invaded”
My response: As soon as Obama used the word “I,” then he did more than that.
Third, you stated, “Obama's speech does not discuss the issue of individuals' refusal to participate in combat:”
My response: Again, Obama used the word “I.”
Therefore I have assumed that, at a minimum, he spoke of his own objection to his own participation. (At least, at a minimum)
It is logical to assume that one’s own objection to a war entails one’s own objection to one’s own participation in that war. (At least, at a minimum)
After all, it would seem strange (and perhaps even contradictory) for Obama to object to the participation of others and yet not object to his own participation.
About Broad categories and Sub-categories
This particular section heading is about “Selective Conscientious Objection.”
The fact that this is a separate section, and a sub-category, means that within this category we are allowed a definition of “conscientious objection” which is slightly different from the rest of the broader article. (“Different” as long as it is a subcategory of the main category.)
This encyclopaedia article is analogous to an entry in a dictionary: Dictionaries list several definitions under one word.
"Selective Conscientious Objection" is about objecting to a specific war. The word “specific” (“selective”) is all-important in this discussion.
To avoid confusion, there is the option of creating an entirely new and distinct article with that title. I would support the creation of such a new article. However, if such a new article were created I would insist that, like dictionaries, this broader article should still at least refer to its subcategories.
Was the quote taken out of context?
Was the quote taken out of context from his whole speech? No. The act of “taking something out of context” means that the essential meaning of a statement is categorically distorted if it is not taken together with its context. For clarity's sake, I would like to point out four such "categories":
1. The objection of an individual to all wars
2. The objection of an individual to a specific war
3. The objection of a group to all wars
4. The objection of a groups to a specific war
Obama is an individual who made an “I” statement which selectively objected to a specific war. Therefore he fits into # 2, --not #4 as you seemed to imply in your response.
I think you're doing a lot of original research there. As I said in my first answer, there is nothing explicitly about conscientious objection in Obama's speech. To assume (your word, not mine) that he would probably become a conscientious objector in the extremely hypothetical event of him being asked to participate in the war in Iraq is to add a lot of subjective interpretation to the speech -- this is an interpretation that I would obviously disagree with, not that it matters what my opinion is. Just because Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was presented in first-person terms does not entail (as you state) that he would be a conscientious objector. These are two complete different stances, and the speech only engages explicitly with the first of them. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Boyd Reimer
Greetings NotFromUtrecht:
I am trying to understand the perspective you are coming from. Could it be that you are speaking of the etymology of the word “conscientious objector?” If so, forgive me for not explaining myself more clearly in my first comment about semantics and terminology, in which I discussed the traditional use of the term "conscientious objector."
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: My position is that, in this case, for the purpose of conveying meaning, the concept of the word "object" is more important than the etymology of the word "conscientious objector." (A concept is a cognitive unit of meaning.)
You said, “there is nothing explicitly about …objection in Obama’s speech,” and yet Obama’s speech explicitly contains the word “oppose.”
You then refer to “two complete different stances,” as if the word “oppose” and “object” are “two complete different stances.”
Frankly, I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion --given that the word “oppose” is defined by Wiktionary (in definition #2 of the two definitions), as "to object to."
According to Wiktionary (not my own original research), in common parlance, the concept of “objection” is virtually the same as the concept of “opposing.”
Conceptually, they are virtually the same. In this discussion of semantics, it is my position that concepts matter more than etymology in our efforts towards an expression of meaning.
Thank you for your contributions. Two heads are always better than one.
I noticed that you created a new section with the heading "Compromising forms." Within that section you discuss “Accepting non-combatant roles during conscription." But you also put, within that category, a sub-heading "selective conscientious objection."
“Accepting non-combatant roles during conscription” is very different than “conscientious objection to particular wars” (See footnote)
"Conscientious objection to particular wars" is not a "compromising form" of conscientious objection because it still fully meets the following definition of "conscientious objection" for that particular war:
A conscientious objector (CO) is an “individual [who has] claimed the right to refuse to perform military service."[1]
(Notice that that definition is referenced. See below.)
An individual who "refuses to perform military service" in a particular war (as opposed to all wars) is still "refusing to perform military service."
Nonetheless the phrase "non-combatant role" is ambiguous enough so that the reader might inadvertently think that that "role" is still "military service. But there is no ambiguity in an individual who "refuses to perform military service" in a particular war.
The above means that “accepting non-combatant roles during conscription” is very different than “conscientious objection to particular wars”
That is my rationale for separating them under separate section headings of the same level. This re-organizes the section you created which is titled "Compromising forms."
Previously one section heading was treated as a category for the other. (ie with one at a higher level than the other) This Wikipedia guideline says, that section headings should, "allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." It follows from this, that section headings should be logical. In the above discussion, I have provided that logic and that rationale.
Footnotes:
On June 4, 1967, an address was given at Western Maryland College, USA by John Courtney Murray, S. J. concerning a more specific type of conscientious objection: “the issue of selective conscientious objection, conscientious objection to particular wars, or as it is sometimes called, discretionary armed service.”[2]
The sentence "a fine roughly equal to the time they would have spent in military drill" doesn't seem to make much sence. How does an amount of money equal a period of time? Maybe someone who has access to the source (Gingerich) could improve this. --95.90.54.203 (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tag for "Additional Citations" should be more specific
There is a tag for "Additional Citations" at the top of the entire article. It should be more specific: For example it should instead be placed in a specific section, and that will suffice. (It doesn't have to be placed both in the section, and at the top of the entire article.) Also, I couldn't find any discussion to specify where the tag is needed. The entire article already has 92 citations. Therefore I am removing the non-specific tag at the top of the article. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tag at the top of the entire article for "Worldwide view" appears unnecessary. Whoever put it there, please try to be more specific, such as place it in a specific section if necessary. Thanks. (Also there is no discussion to specify where it is needed.) The article as a whole already documents conscientious objectors in 16 countries/regions. Therefore I am removing the tag from the article as a whole. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wake up! Czechoslovakia more than 20 (!) years ago breaked off. From 1/1/1993. there is a Czech Republic and a Slovak Republic in Centre-Europe. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyalogbreki (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Obama mentioned in the article? He never refused service and is therefore not a conscientious objector. I'm sure there are plenty of articles to discuss his viewpoints and actions regarding Iraq, however this article is definitely not one of them. ccwaters (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an actual source for the John F Kennedy quote? I strongly suspect it's a piece of folklore; the existing citations for the quote are oddly weak. While it is clearly supported that people want to believe that Kennedy said this, it is not clearly supported that he actually said or wrote this.
The only source offered here or anywhere seems to be "letter to a friend", with no name, no date, no location, and no circumstances.
75.45.15.98 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2013 a private member's bill was introduced to the UK parliament to bring back National Service. The bill was sponsored by the Conservative MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone." In order for this new bit of info to be relevant here, there needs to be some discussion of how (if at all) this bill will address conscientious objection. And, if possible, this should be done by citing a secondary source (such as a newspaper or magazine article), rather than simply citing the bill itself on Parliament's web site. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Markuswestermoen added a paragraph about abortion and other non-military contexts which people sometimes claim are analogous to CO. I reverted with this note on their talk page:
I reversed your changes on [[conscientious objection]. That entry is defined at the top as being about conscientious objection to military service, which is the universal definition of that phrase. I recognize that people in other fields analogize their refusal to perform job duties in those fields, but that's an analogy; it's not part of the definition. I believe that what would be most appropriate here would be to have an article on refusal to perform duties in non-military fields, that referenced conscientious objection as the explanation / analogy given by those workers. Then the CO article is linked to the other article in the appropriate fashion.
Just FYI, I'll note that the reason the analogy is often challenged is that military service has historically included conscription and other non-voluntary aspects, which professionals like pharmacy, nursing, etc., do not have, and that CO by law generally requires objection to the entire profession.
You are welcome. I really came to this entry looking for information on what kind of conscientious objection that is legal around the world, and was suprised that this entry is limited only to military sevice. (The UK 1967 abortion act use "conscientious objection" in the legal text, and several papers on ethics use the term.) If I understand correctly, the Nürenberg-trials established a moral responsibility that is also a basis for medical conscientious objection. Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, France and Italy allow conscientious objection for medical doctors, so they may object to certain laws but still keep their job - while Sweeden has no conscience clause for doctors.
So, if I got it wrong, there may be a need for clarification, like a "not to be confused with someone refusing by a Conscience clause (medical)", or maybe a link to Conscientious acts and the law in the Conscience entry, where John Rawls defines a conscientious objector more like I would expect in this entry.
Yes, I think that's the better approach. CO is a discrete area of law and history, and "see also" or "related" type connections is the way to go. Do you think "see also" is not sufficient? --Lquilter (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the "Criticisms" section is adequately cited. (Also, it is unclear why it is a subsection of "Conscientious objection in Professional forces.") Much of the section should probably be removed if sources are not found in short order. Here are the specific problems:
In hearings about one's personal conflicts of conscience, certain subtleties may arise. One example from interrogations in Germany is about a plank of wood floating on the sea, and you, shipwrecked, need cling to it in order to save your life. Another person swims nearby and he also is in need of this plank. If you deny him the plank, you are, according to the interrogators ready to accept the death of a fellow human being, and therefore able to serve in the military, although they would still not be good for combat situations where others depend on them. Otherwise, if you are willing to allow the other person use of the plank you are willing to die and therefore not credible (although a soldier who would run away and let others die to save themselves would not be good in a life or death situation where others are depending on them to have their backs).
First, a source is needed to confirm that this "plank of wood" story really did happen in Germany. Second, reliable sources are needed for the parenthetical criticisms of the example, which seem like OR.
In other examples, the interviewers would ask if one was ready to kill in self-defense or in the defense of a friend or family member or why one had not revoked their driver's license, for driving carries a risk of accidentally killing someone.
Needs a source.
In Britain during World War I, there was an argument put forth by a conscientious objector who asked the people who were part of the tribunal if they were Christian. When they all replied in the positive he then remarked, "Could you imagine Christ in khaki running out into no-mans land?" None of the panelists could, and the man was given total exemption due to 'religious beliefs'.[1][better source needed]
This has the only footnote in the section, but it reads "The anecdote is represented in, or is coming from Cronin's 1935 novel The Stars Look Down." Either the example comes from the novel — in which case it must be made clear that it is a fictional example — or a non-fiction source is needed. I searched briefly but was unable to find any reliable source.
In various places, questions about such hypothetical situations have come into disuse because they do not explore the present-day state of the objector's conflict of conscience, but rather, possible future actions which, with a great probability, will never take place.
A source is needed that discuses places that have stopped using hypothetical questions specifically because of this concern.
Similar hearings and questions about hypothetical situations were in use in Finland for most of the history of Finnish conscientious objection, from its introduction in the 1930s to the 1980s, when they were abolished. Today, draftees have to specify whether they are objecting for religious or ethical reasons by marking the appropriate checkbox on a form, but hearings are no longer held. If conscripts turn into conscientious objectors during their service, the Defense Force will inquire of their reasons for internal research purposes, but the objectors are not required to answer unless they wish to do so. Usually, a conscientious objector will be released from the military within a few hours of making the claim.
There are lots of factual claims in this paragraph and none of them have sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalartist (talk • contribs)
I'm aware that the term "conscientious objector" is a legal term for those seeking exemption from military service on moral grounds; however, "c. o." more generally means "one who raises a conscientious objection," right? Shouldn't this page either 1) deal with C.O. in all its myriad forms, or 2) alter the scope of the title to "Conscientious Objector (legal draft status)"? I just got done telling somebody "Amish 'conscientiously object' to Social Security, as they feel insurance is thwarting God's will," and was told "No, C.O. has to do with not getting drafted." I mean, I might be wrong (and I know I was using that word against its "more common" application)...but I don't think so.
You have a valid point. Not too long ago this page had an edit reverted because the one who reverted the edit said this only dealt with military conscientious objection. Since this page is essentially all about the military objection, I would lean toward your second suggestion and the creation of a new page for conscientious objection in general (or various other pages for each type). Mikeatnip (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "disability" apply? That's not a free decision, it's a fact. Unless it's not a disability, in which case it's the opposite of a fact. idgi
--129.13.72.198 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is supposedly a quote from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but there does not appear to be any wording in that referring to disability. There was an exemption in the 1916 Military Service Act that granted the right to appeal before the Tribunal against conscription on grounds of disability, but that is not conscientious objection. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on Conscientious objector. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have two pages of questions asked of conscientious objectors in hearings in the United States. They are from the book Advice for Conscientious Objectors in the Armed Forces by Robert Seeley (a book published by the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO)). The CCCO dissolved in 2011. Is it 1) okay, and 2) legal, to add these questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmarmstrong (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Conscientious objector. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 10 external links on Conscientious objector. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Conscientious objector. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Conscientious objector. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Considering conscientious objection only a matter of military issues is a very restricted definition of the concept. Especially in the last century, other forms of objection of conscience appeared, like the objection to peform abortions, euthanasia, death penalties, animal sacrifices, (and other moral issues that don't involve death) etc., and these are not just analogies respect the military objection like someone has argued, most of these are legally recognized by a lot of countries. I checked the articles in other languages and most of them talk about the conscientious objection in other fields apart from the military, it seems the English article is an exception. The French article even talks about the right to disobey the laws that are considered morally unfair and unacceptable based on the 'natural right to resist oppression' recognized in the 'Declaration of the Rights and of the Man' of 1789, and it isn't restricted to military issues. I think this article should be about conscientious objection in general, and then other articles about conscientious objection in specific fields could be made.--37.133.216.10 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the long response, I got pretty carried away!) I have a few opinions on this... I'll preface this with the disclaimer that I wrote Conscientious objection in the United States (except for the history section), so I have some irrational emotional attachment to the status quo. :) I can't speak for the non-English translations, but this article's categorization and related articles are quite deeply rooted in conscientious objection in regards to military service. For example, just look at the references sections for this article and for the US-specific article. Of course, the difficulty should ideally not be a factor in this decision if the cause is great enough. I understand where you're coming from in that "conscientious objection" can (and is) used to refer to other fields, specifically medicine. For example, the Google Scholar results for "conscientious objection" refers largely to medicine. There are some obvious biases given the scholarly nature of medicine, and we should also note that these articles always specify that they are referring to the field of medicine because (I would argue) the implicit/assumed meaning defaults to objection to military service. I would also like to point out that simply changing the search query to "conscientious objector" returns results for objections to military service. My personal analysis of this is that whenever a person identifies themselves as a "conscientious objector", they mean that they object to military service. Medical professionals, to my understanding, identify first-and-foremost as medical professionals, and rarely as "conscientious objectors". In other words, the phrase "conscientious objector" always refers to military service, whereas the phrase "conscientious objection" can, if (and arguably only if) specified, also refer to medicine. Given all of this, I do not support changing this article to generally refer to objection to an action on the basis of conscience, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to create an article about conscientious objection to medical practices (or something else, perhaps more broad) and then to give a "see also" notice referring to that article from here. Really, if someone has the time and desire to create such a page, I'd support a disambiguation page and possibly a move/refactor of this article from Conscientious objector to Conscientious objection to military service. Likewise, the country-specific articles should in that case be similarly treated. But again, I do not support diluting the contents of this article to be more broad, if that is what you mean. I think this topic is far too large to justify being more vague, and if we move in any direction, that direction must be categorization, not consolidation. Gmarmstrong (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of William Coltman's having been a conscientious objector is not present on his own wiki page, and was marked as "dubious" for the first source, the Telegraph, whilst the Oxford Database of Biography is behind a paywall.
I've done some very preliminary looking, and although the claim that Coltman was a conscientious objector is cited frequently on many personal blogs, there is only one other place I have found with any clout that has repeated it, that being this BBC article. The claim the BBC makes is word-for-word the same as that made in this wiki page.
As the BBC has repeated it, I think it is reasonable enough to include, but it still feels rather dubious to me.
"British army Lance Corporal William Harold Coltman received his nation's highest award for combat valor while serving on the Western Front in 1918. Like U.S. Army Corporal Desmond Doss in the next world war, Coltman was a pacifist who refused to bear arms and instead served as a combat medic. Yet neither backed down under fire. Doss received the Medal of Honor; Coltman the Victoria Cross."
Zabecki, D. (2018). Selfless Service. Military History, 35(3), 16.
I've added this source to the page and found weblink. It seems reputable. As I am not a regular user I will not personally remove the "dubious" or "better source" tags as I don't really know the standards for doing so, but I think this may resolve the question. Left to someone else's discretion.98.102.79.214 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the entire section. The only source that says conscientious objector is the BBC one. The others and his ONDB entry all describe him a religious man who was a pacifist - an entirely different thing altogether. Coltman was a volunteer into the army in the early days of the war, way before conscription was introduced and while he may have said to the army "I don't want to shoot anyone", there is no evidence that he ever refused to perform military service. Indeed his ONDB entry mentions that he wasn't adverse to bringing in discarded weapons as well as casualties. Nthep (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Search CIA files, some people who are not legally stateless, are "philosophycally stateless" and some have officially published texts, so no need for CIA intelligence there
Some conscientious objectors consider themselves pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, non-aggressionist, anti-imperialist, antimilitarist or philosophically stateless (not believing in the notion of state).
If one doesn't believe in the notion of the state, why to serve its army?
A philosophical stateless isn't necessarily pacifist. He/she simply doesn't accept or care about countries.
antisovereignist is a vague term... it usually means not to accept any authority (vague because not only people have authority, social notions also do)
Social notions dwell inside the brain of people, or when read they can enter; sometimes people approach an idea by themselves (friends and family might play or not a role).
Social notions inside the brains of people exert pressure and are the reason tyrants exist.
We should enrich sociologically the main text (moderately, because many sociologists are blabbermouths, they force their kindness into others in a way others don't understand and that may lead to wars. Some sociologists are politically active. It might work bad or well so we shouldn't tint politically our texts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411E:5600:D149:92CE:F8BA:657 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a term for non military objection on the same grounds?
Is there a term for objection on moral/religious grounds to taking part in something for non military people e.g Google employees refusing to work on projects that would help US Immigration. If there is and there is an article for it can I suggest a link is added somewhere?
Someone just made a change (with an irrelevant summary of 'Israel') to say "The United Kingdom recognised the right of individuals not to fight in the 18th century following major problems with attempting to force Quakers into military service. The Militia Ballot Act of 1757...". Is there any evidence or source to back up the claim there were major problems? The UK was unusual in not having conscription. The militia were volunteers who did not serve overseas and the Militia Ballot Act was merely a way to encourage militia members to sign up for the army, which was being made more professional. I can find no reference to Quakers causing any kind of major problem; it seems provision was made to Quakers on humanitarian grounds. There were protests against the Militia Act in Scotland and so it was not enacted there, but that was nothing to do with conscientious objection. Other than passing comments on web sites, or copy-n-paste duplicates of this paragraph from Wikipedia, has anyone any contemporary sources for significant maltreatment of Quakers or significant protests by Quakers prior to the 1757 bill? I am not saying it did not happen, but that it needs a source, and I can't find one. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ!15:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference? Conscientious objection is what a conscientious objector does, a conscientious objector is someone who has a conscientious objection. I do not propose changing the scope of the article, which is restricted to the military. (t · c) buidhe04:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that conscientious objection can be about blood transfusion, vaccines, abortion or emergency contraception, whereas a conscientious objector is specifically someone objecting to military service or being forced to support military activity. Various dictionary definitions I can find all support this difference.
A conscientious objector does not 'do' conscientious objection. Conscientious objection is not a specific set of activities, it is a feeling. Being a conscientious objector means carrying out actions in response to being made to do something; those actions are reactions and vary according to circumstance. There is no text book or guide on how to do conscientious objection. Instead, the conscientious objector is defined by their reaction, their refusal to conform and their possible public stance or explanation to support their reaction. You cannot do conscientious objection without there being someone in power trying to impose their will upon you. Hence the description of a conscientious objector is not covered by a description of conscientious objection; the former is a personal experience, the latter a moral philosophy.
A long and tedious Google search just now shows me that in common use the term 'conscientious objector' is only about military conscientious objection (except for a weapon in a computer game and a quest in a another computer game) whereas 'conscientious objection' is very often about religious objection to medical practices. The term 'conscientious objector' seems to be well understood as a person with strong views on military participation and who can expect social and legal consequences for following their views. There are poems, books and films about such people with the term in the title. There are no cohorts of medical or other conscientious objectors and seemingly no genre of art and literature describing them. So, a 'conscientious objector' is a thing that warrants entry in a dictionary and an encyclopaedia. If it warrants entry, then that is its title.
What has Wikipedia to say about article titles? It must be about the content; this article's content is about conscientious objectors, rather than conscientious objection. It needs to be a term people are familiar with, 'conscientious objector' is a well known term for people objecting to military activity. It needs to be a term one would search for; that seems likely. It needs sufficient precision to separate it from other subjects; 'conscientious objector' does this whereas 'conscientious objection' does not. It must be no longer than necessary; is conforms to that rule. As for the consistency rule, the articles given as examples are not quite similar. People who conduct civil disobedience or desert are not a coherent group in the way conscientious objectors are. Conscription is a societal process for tagging people and can result in military, social, environmental or administrative activity; being a conscientious objector is an individual decision with serious and otherwise avoidable personal consequences. The article's need not be consistent with those other articles which may seem related subjects but are a different class of entity.
'Conscientious objector' is a commonly recognised name for such people; it is neutral; it is non-judgemental; it is sufficiently precise; it is not ambiguous; it is concise. I do not think this article's title should be changed. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, I can see how there does need to be a page for 'conscientious objection' that covers medical, military, religious, philosophical and social conscientious objection to a wide variety of subjects such as objecting to abortion, vaccinations, contraception, forced displacement of people, workforce outsourcing, workforce abuse, discrimination, environmental damage, ultra-capitalism, the death penalty and so on. That article is missing - is that the real problem here? SandJ-on-WP (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also no. I thought about this proposal when it was raised and have reflected on it and the content of the article. The more I think about it, the more I think it should not be changed. It begins by talking about conscientious objectors and goes on to talk about their experiences now and in the past in different environments. It is not about conscientious objection, it is mostly about conscientious objectors, their experiences and how they are treated. I think this change would be a change partly for the sake of it. If it is carried out, the article will need some editing to stop it being about the experiences of conscientious objectors and more about conscientious objection. Conscientious objection includes military service, anti-abortion, professionalism and ethics in all manner of fields. But it is military service conscientious objection that results in individual conscientious objectors being treated very differently from the rest of society. So this would create a need for another article about military conscientious objectors, which is essentially what we have here now. This change adds no value. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is article is about a specific status of a person viz. military service, and often with a precise meaning in law. A person can have conscientious objections to a war, but not be considered a "conscientious objector" by status. People can also have conscientious objections to many things, e.g. jury service, paying taxes, swearing oaths, etc. not touched upon here, and bestowing no particular status. Walrasiad (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was expecting "conscientious objector" to show up more often on the Google Ngrams viewer than "conscientious objection", but I was surprised to find that "conscientious objection" appears to be more frequently used.[4]Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the increase in searches and written statements about 'conscientious objection' may be to do with the increase in fear of vaccination. That most recent comparison I did above shows 'conscientious objection form' is the most common 'conscientious objection' search type in that period, which is not about military service but medical intervention exemptions. A search for 'conscientious objection form' shows most results are indeed about vaccination objection. But anti-vaxxers and not called 'conscientious objectors', they are called 'anti-vaxxers'. So removing an article entitled 'conscientious objector' which is about people objecting to military service and moving it to 'conscientious objection' which is currently about the anti-vaccination movement (potentially not very long-lived whereas military conscientious objectors have been a thing in many societies for over a century), is not appropriate. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=conscientious+objection+form&df=2000-01-01..2020-01-01&ia=webSandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
Done -- User:MHM-en