Talk:Veteran/Archive 1

Archive 1

As currently stated. A military veteran is a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces. Proposed change. A military veteran is a person who has served honorably (other than dishonorable) or is currently serving in the armed forces.

Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers

Both articles need work, could possibly be merged. heqs 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Letter Missing from Sometimes

I can't edit this but there's an "s" missing from "women have sometime" New: "women have sometimes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marting10 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PTSD dishonorable discharge addition

The source given for the PTSD statement is hardly WP:NPOV. It's more of a detailed how-to (on the website "Vietnam Veterans Against the War") for a dishonorable discharge vet and their doctor to convince the Board for the Correction of Military Records and the Discharge Review Board to change the vet's records.ndyguy (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

Could this be added about 6240 veterans commit suicide each year: http://www.zimbio.com/Disabled+American+Veterans/articles/14/6240+Veterans+committing+suicide+each+year Stars4change (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Basically all of the citations used in the article pertain to how "America vets are sometimes not honored." Some of the links are to arguably biased sites or those with an agenda. Is that normal to allow those on Wikipedia and should they be removed?98.196.78.26 (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From the volume of your contributions, you don't seem to be "new" to Wikipedia, so you'll have to decide if "[It is] normal to allow those on Wikipedia" or not. As far as if they should be removed, see WP:BOLD.ndyguy (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If bias is a reason for removal then the whole artical should perhaps be deleted as it is biased towards American perspectives on a global term. Better still to make t clear that the references are US, eg. I shall add this to "Department of Defense" as this could refer to such a department in almost any nation. The word "Veteran" does not exclusively refer to war veterans so I would suggest the retitling of the article as "War veterans" if it is to be retained. IF it is retained there is much which needs to be added to make it a more accurate and less Americocentric page, although the latter is a problem which is widespread in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.122.162 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes in format

I tired to space the article a bit and take some out of the wording that may have been considererd non nutural. Only a couple very minor changes. I think the formating helps . Kudos to whomever wrote it, still needs work, but I think its improving. I hope you agree. Sorry I made changes before discussion, but the need seemed imediate (One more parade (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Hygiene: When changes and improvements have been made to the article and there is no longer a need for specific comments people have made on this talk page, can we either add a postscript to the original suggestion or remove it? (Other than being perpetually dissatisfied with a section!) Thanks. (Bvrly (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Have added a new section for Social Organisations of veterans. Some of the links under See Also need repositioning according to whether they are social organisations or aid/help ones, under the appropriate headers. Please put the country they apply to in brackets after the title in case the name is not definitive. I have not sorted them all myself as I am unfamiliar with most of them. The page needs more international contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvrly (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Removal of non-relevant text, needed (including non-relevant link) ?

The following text might need to be removed (see Veteran#The_Congo ):

"Main article: Belgian Congo in WWII" . Comment: The link (and the text) contributes nothing to the text, regarding the subject "veteran". (However, the link does contain information about military history - but that is not the subject of this article. P.S. It might be appropriate, that the following text, links in this manner:

"...Belgian commitment of the Congolese ..."

If there is consensus for the last link, then someone else will have to introduce the link, since I can only view the article (but not edit). S(l)ick nation (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Title of section, needs to be changed?

A section, titled "Veterans' experiences around the world", might need to have its title changed.

Wouldn't a more appropriate title be,

• "Experiences as veterans"
• "Experiences after conflict"
• "Nations"
• "By nation " ?

(The term "veterans' experiences", might not be descriptive/appropriate/adequate, in reference to the text in the section.

P.S. I can only view text in the article. Not edit.

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

POV? Improvement needed?

"War veterans are generally treated with great respect and honor for their contribution to the world ..." .

• The above quote, might be non-encyclopedic.

• "... contribution to the world ..." ? This phrase might be non-encyclopedic, in context.

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikification/ removal of text needed?

The following text needs to be removed,

"Further information: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" .

Comment: In the text of the section, the phrase "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder", needs to be linked to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder . (The abbreviation is linked correctly, in the text of the section.

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Public attitude towards veterans

This statement is patently false: "In some countries with strong anti-military traditions (e.g., Germany after 1945) veterans are neither honored in any special way by the general public, nor have their dedicated Veterans Day, although events are sometimes orchestrated by Neo-Nazi and other minority right-wing groups". Germany banned ANY acknowledgement or celebration of the ideology of Nazism post WWII. To state that "(e.g. Germany after 1945...have dedicated Veterans Day...sometimes orchestrated by Neo-Nazi [groups] is simply not correct, and indeed would be a violation of current German law. This sentence should/will be rewritten or removed. 2012

Re: Norwegian veterans: Text that might be included in this article, or in a potential article:

There is no article yet, regarding History of Norwegian veterans.

Some of the following text, might fit into this article. Comments?

(Translated from Norwegian text in Verdens Gang, Oct 7, 2010, p.18)

• "Those who have been wounded in international operations, can be compensated by up to 2.6 million Norwegian crowns(NOK) if injured before 2010; if one has been injured in 2010 or later, one can receive more(up to 5 million NOK)"
• "I am ... innstilt that we ensure that the conditions are equal for those who have served before 2010 — and those who have served thereafter", was said by member of Norwegian parliament Sverre Myrli in 2010.
• "No money was allocated in the "national budget"(of September 2010), to minimize the difference in compensation schemes, regarding soldiers wounded before and after the beginning of 2010."

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Links that might be appropriate in a potential article

• (Norwegian text)

• http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/12/02/nyheter/forsvaret/utenriks/afghanistan/isaf/14544006/ --80.203.20.178 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wounded in battle in 2005, and received a medal on March 7 2012--Hamburgerstand (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2012-03-08: Fearing store mørketall amongst Norwegian veterans --Hamburgerstand (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012

Military veterans include all members of the armed services that served for any length of time in the armed forces and coast guard. The American Legion, for instance, is a Congressionally Chartered Veterans Organization (https://www.nationalresourcedirectory.gov/other_services_and_resources/veterans_service_organizations/chartered_veterans_service_organizations) that requires only serving on active duty during a period of conflict.

Your definition in the header, in inaccurate: A veteran (from Latin vetus, meaning "old")[1] is a person who has had long service or experience in a particular occupation or field; " A veteran of ..." .[2] This page refers to military veterans, i.e., a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces, and has direct exposure to acts of military conflict, commonly known as war veterans (although not all military conflicts, or areas in which armed combat takes place, are necessarily referred to as "wars"). 69.226.211.235 (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done did not specify the precise edit wanted Egg Centric 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

The British military definition of a veteran (Enshrined in law by The Armed Forces Covenant (2011) is.....someone having served a day or more, in the regular or reserve Armed Forces..." 2.126.118.42 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like that added to the article, please indicate precisely where, and provide a reliable source. Rivertorch (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Page 4 The armed forces covenant --Nozzer71 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide View

As a first step in that direction I inserted a picture of a russian veteran dancing, also maybe lifting the mood level of this article a tiny bit. BTW, thanks for freeing us from facism, US veterans. --Edoe (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

US-specific

This article appears to assume the reader is a citizen or resident of the US. It needs to at least make that assumption clear near the top.

It makes no assumptions about where the reader is from. However, it is almost exclusively focused on the US, and that is the problem. This should be an article about veterans in general, all over the world and across all history. As it stands, this article should be called something like "Veterans in the United States". Of course, a better better than renaming would be to edit it and make it less narrowly focused. Interlingua 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I need clarity on a this. My grandpa was in the canadian army in ww2 but never fought because a week or two his platoon I think it was got sick with the measles I think?

US Specific

By statute, a veteran is defined as a “person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.”

The above definition is specific for veterans in the United States.

Congressional Research Service, 7-5700 R42324 is specific on the definition of a veteran.

The VA also recognizes this definition of a veteran.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42324.pdf

Davisdhartness (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

Please add the following research studies to support the sentence "Homelessness, street-sleeping and relationship breakdown are also commonly reported."

Tsai, J., Harpaz-Rotem, I., Pietrzak, R. H., & Southwick, S. M. (2012). The role of coping, resilience, and social support in mediating the relation between PTSD and social functioning in veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychiatry, 75(2), 135-149.

Tsai, J., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2015). Risk factors for homelessness among US veterans. Epidemiologic reviews, mxu004.

Poowk (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Done thanks for your contributions! —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition

"This page refers to military veterans, i.e., a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces." OK, this does match definitions I have seen online, but does anyone actually use the word "Veteran" to talk about fresh recruits? It is sort of an oxymoron. I could not imagine using the word for anything less than a decade of service or at least some experience with war. Wisnoskij (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, it looks like perhaps the word definition here/in dictionaries is getting creep from official military sources. They need to use a more liberal definition mechanically; Obviously a veteran's organization is not going to discriminate; But that does not change the English word. "Veteran" in a very specific jargon situation can mean whatever you want, but as a general English word only means someone with long service or experience in the military. Wisnoskij (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Health Effects

There seems to be very limited information regarding the health effects on veterans. There is a brief synopsis of the new treatments of PTSD and a brief statement of "other" disorders. It seems that although there is a separate section of information, there needs to be a little more detail within this page regarding the subjects. Swainj (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Most of the references in this article are horrible. The whole thing needs a complete rewrite to avoid being US-centric, NPOV and just plain stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.104.151 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is horrible - it really needs a re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.31.8 (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging comments. I do have more references to add but just have not had time yet - I tend to write bits and then add the reference later, if I leave the flow of writing and look for the references to insert as I go, then the quality of the writing and the logical structure of the sections isn't so clear. (Bvrly (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

This sentence: "In some countries with strong anti-military traditions (e.g., Germany after 1945) veterans are neither honored in any special way by the general public, nor have their dedicated Veterans Day, although events are sometimes orchestrated by Neo-Nazi and other minority right-wing groups". It needs a period at the end. And if you are going to attach Nazism (a word with negative connotations) to 'right-wing' (something many Americans consider themselves to be), you need to cite a reference that shows how there are similar ideologies. Otherwise it's just a pot shot at American conservatives. A better word, if you don't have a reference to make that connection, would be 'minority nationalist' or 'fascist' groups. Captain Vimes (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL - the world doesn't revolve around Americans, and mentioning "minority right-wing groups" in the same sentance as Neo Nazis is hardly a "pot shot" at American conservatives. Especially as it is talking about events in other countries. Wardog (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above response fails to address the fact that it is simple erroneous to refer to National Socialism as "right-wing". 195.200.159.1 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is unacceptable! This horribly written article makes Wikipedia look bad. Nothing but personal opinions, no sources and highly biased. I can not believe this. Especially for such a common word such as veteran. On top of that, this article is locked. Shame on the author of this piece of trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XodoX (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know where "veteran" is defined as someone who "is serving in the armed forces." I could find no references to support that contention. Concur with other comments that this article is garbage, and very poorly written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos 03 November, 2013

I agree that the page primarily is steered towards Veterans in the United States. More than likely because they are the primary readers. The main Veterans page should be universally generic to all countries, with separate pages for each country. That however, would require a significant amount of work, for whom to do? Swainj (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Veterans

There should be a distingtion between an entry for Veterans in general and on for American Veterans. This entry seems to focus on American Veterans.

This entry should also touch upon the roots of the Veterans Administration since the article mostly concerns American Veterans.

This entry should include passages from Abraham Lincoln who said:

" To Care for Him, Who Shall Have Borne the Battle, & for His Widow, & His Orphan " Abraham Lincoln , 1865.

This particular quote of one our Nation's most beloved Presidents was made in regard to the Horrors of the American Civil War, & with the beginning of Reconstruction, LIncoln had made the concerted effort to ensure that soldiers of both sides would be afforded care,redress, & comfort, because they were ALL Americans.

The VA ( Veteran's Administration ) uses this same quote ensuring the quality of Life for any & all Veterans, regardless of gender, conflict or peacetime, physical or mental disability.

All this is verifyable by simply going to any American history book pertaining to the Civil War.

Just thought someone should know about that...

Tony Barzola

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veteran. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080515152951/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Incorrect: "This page refers to military veterans, i.e., a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces."

Correct: "This page refers to military veterans. What is a Veteran? Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a veteran as “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.” This definition explains that any individual that completed a service for any branch of armed forces classifies as a veteran as long as they were not dishonorably discharged.

http://va.org/what-is-a-veteran-the-legal-definition/

2601:402:504:5670:716E:212C:EBD:A724 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2016

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse can be another contributing factor that affects physical and mental health of veterans after their service. Substance abuse may also damage personal relationships families and lead to financial difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that substance abuse disproportionately affects the homeless veteran population. A 2015 Florida study compared causes of homelessness between veterans and non veteran populations in a self reporting questionnaire. The results from the study found that 17.8% of the homeless veteran participants attributed their homelessness to alcohol and drug related problems compared to just 3.7% of the non-veteran homeless group. Veterans with substance abuse problems may benefit from services that address recovery. A 2003 study found that homeless adults exiting homelessness was significantly associated with access to support from family/friends and services. However, this relationship was not true when comparing homeless participants who had a current substance-use disorders

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provide a summary of treatment options for veterans suffering from substance abuse. For treatments that do not a involve medication, they offer a therapeutic options that focused on finding outside support groups and “looking at how substance use problems may relate to other problems such as PTSD and depression.”

Pnekai (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)pnekai

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Change the following sentence from The American Civil War produced veterans' organizations, such as the Grand Army of the Republic and United Confederate Veterans. to The American Civil War produced veterans' organizations, such as the Grand Army of the Republic for United States veterans and United Confederate Veterans for soldiers who fought on behalf of the Confederacy.

The reason for this change is that many political groups who call themselves 'Southern Heritage' groups are looking for support for their contention that Confederate soldiers are US veterans to legitimate their claims that they should be entitled to march in Veterans Day parades and that their ancestors are entitled to the same honors from the US federal government as US veterans. Confederate soldiers were never granted status as US veterans, although some were pardoned for their crimes during their lifetimes, and remaining widows received US federal assistance in 1958. The Congressional Research Service (part of the Library of Congress) issued this report: The Wikipedia entry on Confederate pardons does not show any evidence of those who were pardoned being called US veterans by Lincoln or Johnson. The 1958 law Public Law 85-425 granting Confederate widows pensions defines the term veteran for the purposes of that law, and does not confer a status on the Confederate soldiers themselves: 3(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term 'veteran' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term 'active, military or naval service' includes active service in such forces." Gsmckinney (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

opening line

In my view the current opening line makes no sense:
"A war veteran (from Latin vetus, meaning "old")[1] is a person who has or is serving in the armed forces, or a person who has had long service or experience in an occupation or office[2]."
This line (taken literally) states that someone is a WAR VETERAN if this person

1. "Is [currently] serving in the armed forces" however briefly and regardless of any exposure to a war situations. In extremis this states that the second you sign for military (and serve in the armed forces) you immediately become a veteran.
2. "Has serving in the armed forces" (besides the grammatical issue). Again, if you leave boot camp after 5 minutes you have been serving in the forces and would therefore be a WAR veteran.
3. "Had long service in an occupation or office". This states that (e.g.) a university professor, or a garbage collector, would become a WAR veteran after being professor for a long time.
   

This is obviously not what is meant with a war veteran. Can someone who knows what it should be please revise (I would like to but have no real idea how veteran is exactly defined in the Anglo-Saxon context/language). Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the term "war" even tagged on to the term veteran? Veteran can mean someone that has served in the armed forces without combat or "war" experience or someone who has, and that is the title of the page.SADADS (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see clarification of the word "veteran" and the term "war veteran". Would someone who died in combat be considered a veteran, for instance? Angleshades (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to rejig and clarify the opening definition again so that it makes sense. I do thnk perhaps that the entire page should be renamed Military veterans or war veterans though. Some military "excursions" are not classified as war, so my preference would be for military vet over war vet. Bvrly (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As it is defined in the article, I believe, a U.S. military veteran is someone who has served for a specific amount of time during a time of conflict or war. If people want to article to be less focused on U.S. veterans, perhaps they should add more about other nations. Not everyone who knows about one nation knows about others. 72.42.174.253 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As pertaining to US Military veterans only, you do not have to serve during a time of war. The Department of Veterans Affairs considers you to receive Veterans benefits once you complete one contract period honorably(different periods for different branches of service have existed over the years). This is proven by a DD 214 or 215 given upon release from service. You can also receive a certificate of eligibility from the Veterans administration office while you are still in active service and prior to your fist DD 214 or 215 being created. This is primarily used to show eligibility for a Veterans home loan or for VA medical care. Source https://va.org/determine-your-veteran-status/ Caspergst (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

There is great confusion about who is actually a Veteran. A Veteran is somebody who....'did' not...'does'.

The article reads, "A military veteran is a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces."

 The second half after "or" is absolutely FALSE!!!  If left off it would make sense.

Change (x): "A military veteran is a person who has served or is serving in the armed forces."

To(y): "A military Veteran is a person who has served in the military and is no longer serving in the military."

A military Veteran (it must be capitalized to show respect)is a person who has served in the military but is no longer serving in the military in any capacity whatsoever. On the other hand: A 'Combat Veteran' (a specific recognition) is a person who has fought in combat during a war or a skirmish against a declared enemy and may still be serving in the military. Example: "Sgt Smith is a combat veteran of the battle of Anzio, Italy." He may be asked to assist in future battles because he has experience that may ensure a victory. Combat Veterans are held in high honor within the ranks of their comrades if still serving.

Source: After World War I (the Great War, the war to end all wars) produced the most Veterans to date in history at the time for a single war. The civilian populace created Armistice Day to thank all the military men who fought in that ugly war that destroyed so much of the world and now the military men who are discharged from the ranks could return to their respective countries and rest assured that they helped create a peaceful planet. Armistice Day has since been changed to be called 'Veterans Day' because it specifically named the people it honored...Veterans.

Too many times has civilians been confused by who is being spoken about when someone refers to a 'Veteran' in a conversation. That nonsense MUST STOP.....IMMEDIATELY...or forever DISRESPECT.....Veterans!!! Veterans MUST NEVER be disrespected.....EVER!!! A Military Veteran is the only true...hero when so many are called heroes today that did not step up and put their life on the line for the good of the whole....meaning.....whole Country. Police may be a hero in their respective community but that is all. When they travel outside of their respective community then they are no longer a hero unless someone states, "They are a hero of (*) community." and recognized thusly.

The war dead and only the war dead are honored on Memorial Day each year. NOT on Veterans Day!!!...that would be disrespectful to the living Veterans it is meant to honor.

'Military Appreciation Day' is separate to recognize those currently serving in military uniform. That should...MUST be the day that military parades are held on to avoid confusion!!!

If we are to invoke intelligence into society we must make sure we honor the TRUE heroes who saved us from tyranny....correctly.

I hope I have brought clarity to this issue of......ignorance. MikeWyvern0324 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've corrected the lead to the right definition, and added in a sentence about what a combat veteran is. It's in bold as combat veteran redirects to this article, as does military veteran. We do not, however, routinely capitalize the word 'veteran'. Thank you for your contribution. Regards, Fish+Karate 14:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

VETRANS... THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:1AF0:D45F:3E38:B558:4D1 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Not all titles appear in the auto-generated Contents, I noticed.

This is beyond my knowledge to correct. I tried a bit of fiddling and previewed the results but it made no difference. Handball to someone who can? Thanks!

Mathsgirl (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

An organization that should be added to this page is https://03xxfoundation.org/ Jeremyknauff (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:ELNO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab included within this article should be removed as it is pointless to have a tab with no information in it in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

CURRENT STATEMENT In the United States, a veteran is a person who has served in the armed forces (the United States National Guard and Reserve included) and were discharged under conditions other than dishonorable.

This is technically incorrect.

change to: In the United States, a veteran is a person who has served in the <active> armed forces (the United States National Guard and Reserve included) <for at least 180 days> and was discharged under conditions other than dishonorable.

source: https://va.org/what-is-a-veteran-the-legal-definition/ source: https://www.army.mil/article/180159/guard_and_reserve_members_receive_veteran_status

notes: Members of the reserves or national guard are only considered veterans if they were called to active federal duty during their period of service, OR if they were never called to active duty, served in the national guard or reserves for 20 or more years. For example, someone who joins the army national guard, serves for 6 years, and is discharged would not be considered a veteran. Someone who joins the army reserve, serves for 4 years, and is called to federal service for 180+ days during that time, would be considered a veteran.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter3867 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: have added a qualification to the sentence to highlight significance of active service as a qualification of veteran status. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition

Your definition of veteran in the U.S. is incomplete. Military.com says: "Those who served in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) or as commissioned members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are considered veterans by law." USPHS and NOAA officers are not military veterans, but they count as veterans. E.g., can be buried in veterans cemetery, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C003:FD0:B9EC:86DA:DF18:EFAB (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"application of professional violence in particular"

This seems a particularly skewed perspective, especially as part of the intro. The shared experience is more likely to be subjected to risk of violence than the application of violence. This is evident by the overwhelming set of specialities that are not related to the application of violence, and a history aimed at quelling the application of violence. The phrase itself is a very propaganda laced phrase regardless of whether it is sourced material. 100.36.205.65 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

agree in full. phrase should be reworded for WP:NPOV or removed AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

US Supreme Court

AnubisIbizu has inserted a statistic about the presence of veterans on the US Supreme Court, which I reverted (and notified) as being an arbitrary inclusion. There are hundreds of US institutions that could be noted for their presence (or not) of veterans, and no evidence is provided as to why this one should be mentioned or is noteworthy. The response was not positive (as separate issue), but I still maintain this content is not appropriate for inclusion, and is it up to AnubisIbizu to build consensus. Others have thoughts? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It is my position that this inclusion is noteworthy because the institution has always had veterans since it began. Now, there is only veteran left in the institution, risking zero depending on the next nomination. This makes the discussion a historical event. Other institutions have no selective demographic impact, as the Supreme Court has only nine members. Jim, you have not mentioned any other particular institutions to draw contrasts to, the Supreme Court is unique in this way and many other ways, thus the number of veterans in ins ranks is unique.

Furthermore, as the Supreme Court Historical Society has stated, veterans are important in the Supreme Court because military service "provides a special perspective on the intersecting powers of the federal government," and "Justices who have served in the armed forces prior to serving on the Court have additional practical experience in how those powers function.” Again, you have not proven how that is not significant or unique, as is your burden.

Indeed, the Supreme Court itself tracks how many of its members have served in the military.

In sum, I have already created the presumption of the noteworthiness of my contribution, which you have offered nothing to rebut. AnubisIbizu (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition numerous news articles have discussed this topic, making of note in the public sphere. See, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4. Just because you don't like it does not means that it is not noteworthy. AnubisIbizu (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Further, at least one peer-reviewed academic article has discussed how military service impacts the Supreme Court justice's perspectives while on the Court. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1599 (2006),. Specifically with reference to their thoughts on capital punishment.

Another article discussed "how military service may have influenced Justice Stevens's decision-making process." Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010). There is no shortage of decades of articles discussing the impact of military service on Supreme Court justices.

It even discussed on legal blogs. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you see that big orange tag at the top of this article saying that the current content is too U.S.-centric? Adding irrelevant statistics about military spouses on SCOTUS makes that issue worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Buddy, there was nothing on this page about military spouses. You removed the wrong content. The statistic I added was purely about Supreme Court justices who were in the military. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That said, I do see your point about the article being too U.S.–centric. I will leave this alone on here, but still contend that it is relevant to the page. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not your "buddy", guy. Discussion on spouses of veterans more generally can be useful. As in, what is it like for them as they care for the homestead while their spouse is abroad? But how many SCOTUS justices are married to someone with military experience is way too far out of the core issue to be relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Include. I agree that the statistic should be on the page. Granted, the page is too U.S.-centric, but that it a problem of not adding enough information from other countries, not with the amount of information regarding the U.S., which is sparse.

Unclear what Muboshgu is talking about with spouses, the statistic about 33% of the justices being veterans has nothing to do with spouses. Appears to be a gaslight. Traynreck (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Traynreck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Striking edit made by a sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)