Talk:Iraq War resisters in Canada

Please note the Wikipedia editing procedure for controversial articles
Recognizing that this article is what Wikipedia calls a "controversial article," please click here to learn about the Wikipedia policy on editing procedures for controversial articles. This will save everyone a lot of technical work. Here is the Wikipedia policy: "'If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones. If the controversial edit is reverted by another contributor then at least the non-controversial edits will be maintained.'"

Move talkpage arguments / justifications to talkpage please?
The Legal English / Standard English sections of this article are written as part of a talkpage dispute over how this article is titled/written, not in an encyclopedic style. The parts only relevant to talkpage discussion should be moved to the talkpage, and the parts left in the actual article should be edited and summarized in a more encyclopedic style.2001:569:7824:0:D857:8477:4211:821E (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * agree, here is the relevant section. Bonewah (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Terminology and semantics
The soldiers who have chosen to come to Canada have been referred to using various terms: "deserter", "conscientious objector", "war resister", or "refugee". The decision to choose one of these terms above another is often an indication of one's position on the issue. This has led to discussions concerning general semantics, and discussions concerning specific terminology.

In discussions of specific terminology, it is helpful to point out the distinction between Legal English and Standard English.

Legal English
Before coming to Canada, some of these soldiers went through an extensive application process to attempt to gain legal status as "conscientious objector" within their own country, the US. For example, in the case of Jeremy Hinzman, Amnesty International notes that "he took reasonable steps to register his conscientious objection through seeking non-combatant status in [August] 2002, an application which was rejected [April 2003]." This means that he tried for eight months, unsuccessfully, to be officially and legally referred to as a "conscientious objector" instead of legally referred to as a "deserter".

In any case, legally speaking, he is not a deserter until he has been convicted of desertion. This is true because in the U.S., an accused is innocent until proven guilty. This also applies to all of those who left the military.

Jeremy Hinzman then came to Canada to apply for legal "refugee status" under Canadian law. But until Jeremy Hinzman gains legal status as a refugee, he cannot be legally referred to as a "refugee".

The two countries involved in this situation, the United States and Canada, may have differing legal definitions of the term "deserter". In that case, the country of citizenship of the individual soldier, not the present residence of the soldier, will determine the legal status and the legal term used to refer to that individual. But again, legally speaking, an individual is not a "deserter" until he or she has been convicted of "desertion".

All of this illustrates that the war resisters are in a legal limbo as far as legal terminology is concerned: Legally speaking, they are not yet conscientious objectors, are not yet deserters, and are not yet refugees.

In international law, specifically the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (the Handbook) of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there is discussion of "refugee status after desertion" as being legitimate under international law.

The federal law-making body of Canada is the Parliament of Canada. The term "war resister" is used in the official documents of the Parliament of Canada. That is the rationale for using it as a default in this article. Even though Wikipedia is internationally used, the highest official level of debate about this issue occurred in the Parliament of Canada.

Standard English
The common usage of the verb "desert" means "to leave one's duty or post". "Leaving one's post" implies that the soldiers who did not want to participate in the Iraq War actually left the battleground in Iraq. In fact, of all the thousands of "desertions" from that war between 2003 and 2006, there was only one reported case of a desertion within Iraq itself.

The press has not been consistent in the terms they use to refer to the Iraq war resisters in Canada: Sometimes the press uses the term "deserter," and sometimes "war resister." Because of this inconsistency, the press cannot be used as an arbiter.



Standard English section
This paragraph is simply nonsense: "The common usage of the verb "desert" means "to leave one's duty or post"[13] "Leaving one's post" implies that the soldiers who did not want to participate in the Iraq War actually left the battleground in Iraq. In actual fact, of all the thousands of "desertions" from that war between 2003 and 2006, there was only one reported case of a desertion within Iraq itself.[15]" Leaving one's duty or post does not imply someone's in-theater or even overseas. But regardless of the validity of that claim, if it originated from the author, than it's original research and has no place here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings LtNOWIS:


 * Thank you for your participation in this important topic. Two heads are always better than one.


 * First, to address your probe about whether or not this is original research: The reference posted with the article refers to the article by Bill Nichols, of USA Today, not myself. Therefore this is not original research. When writing about the time period between "2003 and 2006," Nicholas wrote, "There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq." It appears that he got his information from Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins because he wrote that statement in the same paragraph as he records an interview with Maj. Elizabeth Robbins.


 * Second, to address your probe of the English language: As I mentioned in the article: "In discussions of specific terminology, it is helpful to point out the distinction between Legal English and Standard English." After reading your comment I believe that you are referring to Legal English, not Standard English. However, the statement to which you are referring is found in the section entitled Standard English.


 * "Post" is defined as "An assigned station; a guard post" See meaning # 2 at this link


 * "Station" is defined as "A place where one stands or stays or is assigned to stand or stay." see meaning # 5 at this link




 * Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

desertion has the legal definition of desertion in the USA. There does not seem to be any distinction between being posted/stationed in a battlezone or posted/stationed in a non-battlezone. Unless there is a specific reference stating that the US military only uses posted/stationed to refer to battlezones, no implications should be gleaned from those words. Androsynth (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits from December 12, 2009
Greetings User:Dcraig9

Thank you for your participation in this article. Two heads are always better than one. With a little bit of discussion, I am confident that we can come to a reasonable compromise:

Some parts of [your first edit on Dec 12] I kept, such as three section heading changes, etc. Thank you for your input.

I noticed that you shortened the lead section. The Wikipedia policy on leads states that "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." See also Wikipedia policy on the length of leads.

You changed it from seven paragraphs to three. The reduction in the number of paragraphs was a good edit, The article is over 30,000 characters, so we are allowed the full four paragraphs instead of three.

So now our task, together, is to determine the content of those reduced number of paragraphs.

When deciding on content, I would recommend that we both familiarize ourselves with the philosophical discussion concerning Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. I freely admit that on most occasions, but not all, I tend towards inclusionism.

Having said that, I am surprised at some of the deletions you made in the lead section. The Wikipedia policy on leads recommends that "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article."

Let us use that Wikipedia policy as a guide in determining the criteria as to what should be kept in the lead, as I show in the below two headings:

1. Subject matter which probably does not serve the function of "creating interest"

I am leaving out the words of Gerrard Kennedy (below) because theses words do not reflect both sides of the debate. These are the words I am leaving out:

"'which in his words was “in response to the refusal of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, [ Jason Kenney ], to show Canadian sensibility.”"

The omission of the above will improve the degree of neutrality.

2. Subject matter which has already been proven to "create interest"

I propose that the two motions passed in Parliament have already proven significant enough to "creat[e] interest in reading the whole article." Therefore I am now re-including the mention of those motions.

Also, the poll done by Angus Reid Strategies took a "sample of 1,001 adult Canadians. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 3.1 %, 19 times out of 20") The poll, too, has already proven significant enough to "creat[e] interest in reading the whole article."

3. Other issues

This issue has been debated internationally, as you can see by the references. This fact is also significant enough to "creat[e] interest in reading the whole article." That's why I re-included the below:

When I re-included the phrase about Canada's reputation as a place of refuge, I added the words "refuge for Americans in trouble" to make it match the reference more closely.

Newsweek has a circulation of over 4 million worldwide. Therefore I re-included the reference to it.

Also, please remember fairness in including debate on both sides of the border. I noticed that you included evidence of debate from the US without including evidence of the debate in Canada. Therefore I tried to balance that out.

Further Edits from December 12, 2009
Greetings User:Dcraig9

Thank you again for your participation in this process. Two heads are always better than one. It is healthy for me to try to see things through the scrutiny of another pair of eyes.

Some edits and deletions you have made are justified. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your input.

Nevertheless there are other edits which are surprising to me -- even after I have made an honest attempt to see things through your eyes.

Since I agree with some of your edits, but don't agree with others, I propose that the best way to handle this situation is to go through them one by one on a case-by-case basis. I will be numbering them so that you can later respond to those numbers more easily. Hopefully these numbers I've provided for you will be helpful to you as you respond.

Please note:

I realize that this article is what Wikipedia calls a "controversial article." Please click here to learn about the Wikipedia policy on editing procedures for controversial articles. This will save both you and I a lot of technical work. Here is the Wikipedia policy: "'If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones. If the controversial edit is reverted by another contributor then at least the non-controversial edits will be maintained.'"

Edit 1

In this edit you deleted this statement:

"After the 40th Canadian Parliament began, the whole process of presenting the war resisters motion had to begin again in order for it to apply to the new Parliament."

I thought that the above statement was helpful to the reader in providing context. Some international readers may not be familiar with the way the Parliamentary system functions. Therefore I am now re-including it in the article.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to be sensitive to your concerns I have not re-included the sentence which had come just before it.

Edit 2

In this edit you deleted this statement:

"After coming close to forming a coalition government, Members of the opposition parties confirmed on January 22, 2009, that, if they were in power together in a coalition government, then the June 3, 2008 Parliamentary recommendation concerning war resisters would be implemented. "

The above statement is referenced. Therefore I am re-including it. (In the existing footnote, I fixed the date, author and URL. Thank you for alerting me to the expired URL.)

Nevertheless, in an attempt to be sensitive to your concerns, I have not re-included the sentence which had come just before it.

Edit 3

In this edit you deleted this statement:

"It is noteworthy that spokesperson Alykhan Velshi included the words: "as a government.""

This is helpful to the reader in fully understanding the situation. This statement does not present a point of view. Therefore I am re-including it.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to be sensitive to your concerns, I have not re-included the bolding in the sentence which had come just before it.

Edit 4

In this edit you deleted this statement:

"Several months later, at an Oct 19, 2009 press conference, US Iraq war resister Rodney Watson was asked the following question: “Jason Kenney, the Immigration Minister has said the government doesn’t believe the military deserters from the US are genuine refugees.…What do you say to that?” Watson replied, “Where’s the weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq a real threat to the US?...” "

The above statement is referenced. Therefore I am re-including it. Please check reference. Thank you. This is a press interview. The video was edited by the CBC, as you can see when the microphone is repeatedly moved from one person to another. (The CBC cut the parts out when the microphone was in front of the person to the left of Rodney Watson.) The CBC editing demonstrates that the CBC chose the content.

Edit 5

In this edit you deleted this reference:

(See details. )

This is a reference that provides context and helps the reader understand the situation. It does not present a point of view. Therefore I am now re-including it in the article.

Edit 6

In this edit you changed the phrase "Parliamentary recommendation" to "Parliamentary motion." That is incorrect. At that point in time the motion had passed and therefore officially became an official "Parliamentary recommendation." (It is only called a "motion" if it has not yet passed.) Therefore I am changing your word "motion" back to the word "recommendation."

Edit 7

In this edit you deleted the word "minority" plus the link to the article on Minority governments in Canada. The rationale for keeping that word and that link there is as follows: Due to the international attention which this article's issue is receiving, there will probably be many international readers visiting this article who are unfamiliar with the Parliamentary system. Therefore I am re-including the word "minority" and the link to Minority governments in Canada.

Nevertheless, I am leaving in place all the other edits you made in that paragraph.

Edit 8

In this edit you cautioned me to stay precise in my wording. Thank you for that caution. In response to your caution, I am now editing the wording to reflect precisely the wording of Brian P. Goodman in the reference (verbatim). This new edit is now more precise than both you or I had done previously. Thank you for alerting me.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

About tag removal on the below date

The tag stated

"'This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.'"

My reasons for removing the tag are as follows:

First, the tag mentions “discussion.” There has been no further discussion after several days waiting.

Second, the tag mentions “This article or section.” This is not specific enough, especially with no discussion to explain the specifics. There is ambiguity in the tag. (To eliminate ambiguity, it is helpful to place a tag in a specific section if a person has a problem with a specific section.) If the tag referred specifically to the lead section, then there has already been discussion about the lead section. Because of that discussion about the lead section, it appears that the issue with the lead section has now been resolved.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo relevance
This discussion is about the pertinence or relevance of photographs. Context of discussion: This edit added a photo. The relevance of that photo is in question. Please see this Wikipedia policy: Photos. That policy states, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Therefore I am now removing that photo plus another photo which both do not appear to meet Wikipedia's standard of "relevance" or "pertinence."

I stress again: This rationale motivated me to remove two photos; not just one. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Coram"
I thought there was at least one erroneous occurrence of the word "coram" in the article and also in Jeremy Hinzman (in the latter, I'm pretty sure the link to Coram non judice is erroneous). On second thought, I wonder if it is perhaps correct Canadian or US usage, but I couldn't confirm it with a Google search. Could a more knowledgeable contributor check the phrasing in these two articles? Apokrif (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Canada and Iraq War resisters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923193148/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2008/09/18/iraq-objector.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/18/iraq-objector.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415073614/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/07/15/bc-robin-long-deportation-expected.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/07/15/bc-robin-long-deportation-expected.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Canada and Iraq War resisters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923193148/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2008/09/18/iraq-objector.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/18/iraq-objector.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116113153/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2009/01/09/refugee-war.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/09/refugee-war.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Canada and Iraq War resisters. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214005803/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2005/03/24/hinzman-050324.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/03/24/hinzman-050324.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why?
This question might sound stupid, but the US don't have the draft any more, do they? So why can't those people just resign? Give their two weeks notice? This demands some explanation for non-US people. --129.13.72.198 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Canada and Iraq War resisters. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122002334/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-29.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-29.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605052013/http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=145037&archive=24,16,2004 to http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=145037&archive=24,16,2004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122002334/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-29.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Canada and Iraq War resisters. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=145037&archive=24%2C16%2C2004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728130327/http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728130327/http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728130327/http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/tribunal/decisions/hinzman/Pages/hinzman.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914192503/http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/IMM-2168-05.pdf to http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/IMM-2168-05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216071445/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/bulletin/2007/07-11-16.bul/07-11-16.bul.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/bulletin/2007/07-11-16.bul/07-11-16.bul.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6f16e1b6-ce9c-4045-a5ec-95469eb16c2f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604214934/http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/239500--deserter-tells-immigration-hearing-he-will-be-treated-harshly-if-sent-back-to-u-s to http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/239500--deserter-tells-immigration-hearing-he-will-be-treated-harshly-if-sent-back-to-u-s
 * Added tag to http://newsfix.ca/2009/06/03/hazing-persecution-cited-in-us-army-deserters-bid-to-stay-in-canada/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604214934/http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/239500--deserter-tells-immigration-hearing-he-will-be-treated-harshly-if-sent-back-to-u-s to http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/239500--deserter-tells-immigration-hearing-he-will-be-treated-harshly-if-sent-back-to-u-s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)