Talk:Conscientious objector

message: 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. GBH 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Bosworth Material 

message: :"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 military service."
:"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.
Hope this is acceptable. --kmh 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restated the definition and organized a short intro  

message: : Currently, conscientious objector status is recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I think this sentence is misleading:
* There is no explicit text in the Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights anent recognition of this status.
* The ECHR  states only (my emphasis):
: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.  MarjorieMazia 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognition of conscientious objector status

message: 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.
--pgeoff 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
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)
thread_title: Categories?

message: 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.
:It most certainly is not!  Pustelnik (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 unwise 09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.
Books
Films
Peace symbol
Protest song
Chants and slogans
?--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 unwise 15:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --LQ 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Symbols are not appropriate for this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ask me, I could help about the Swiss situation :) --Keimzelle 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: America

message: 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.
Did the rest of the world follow on, or evolve the concept and laws about it independently?Midgley 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only military? 

message: The article was mostly about US experience.  What happened in Britain was rather different.  --GwydionM 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a subsection for Britain 

message: 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'.
--GwydionM 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious motives 

message: 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? Tamino 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only military service? 

message: How about a note on him?  He's a very famous conscientious objector.  Citizen Premier 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammed Ali 

message: (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'.--Moriar 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'army chaplains' to 'military chaplains' 

message: 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. JonHarder talk 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --lquilter 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: : 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)
replies: text: Umm .... not sure how to respond to that one!--JK the unwise 13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality is Death and Anti-American

message: 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. Izzy1985 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with removal on that basis because I think people can form new convictions at any stage in life. JonHarder 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 | Talk 08:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --LQ 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Izzy1985 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--MPorciusCato 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Izzy1985 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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.) --LQ 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior Enlistment References 

message: 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.
Chrbartolf 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manifesto as External Link 

message: I did a partial rewrite of the Hypothetical Situations section.
Lord of Light 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial rewrite 

message: Did you know that conscientious objectors tended to be men under 20 as most of these men simply 'couldn't be bothered to fight' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.117.97 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discusion of the article rather than general discusion of the topic. Unfortunatly we can't have any oringinal research, sorry.--JK the unwise 10:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi im here to talk about conscientious objectors 

message: 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. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me not to link to a disambiguation page such as dharmic religions. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion" (492+475). Andries 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  81.86.133.45 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources for the term [[dharmic religions]]?

message: The section 'Alternatives_for_objectors' section is so slanted I had to wear a tether just to read it! IdLoveOne 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fairly large section. Can you be more specific about which parts are a problem for you? ✤ JonHarder talk 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably talking about that first paragraph. Panzer V Panther 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Omigosh

message: 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.  81.86.133.45 14:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction contradicts itself 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should this be Iraq War? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States, Immigration/Emigration to Canada. 

message: From the article: "British conscription in WWII did apply to Northern Ireland"
Is this statement accurate? Sites like 1 2 3 4 seem to dispute it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.167.232 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscription in Northern Ireland 

message: I am extremely interested by this story and would love it if someone could provide more detailed information or sources about the topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.89.239 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story about southern quakers and firing squad? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current legal situation - misleading information 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  "They never called me . . ." (Muhammad Ali quote) 

message: Greetings User:SummerWithMorons:
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."On July 30, 1993, explicit clarification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United Nations Human Rights Committee general comment 22, Para. 11: 
(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.”
Again, thank you for your contributions.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate sections used for "non-combatant roles" and "selective conscientious objection" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conscientious_objector#United_States 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag for "Additional Citations" should be more specific 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag for "Worldwide view" appears unnecessary 

message: 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)
thread_title: Obama

message: 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)
replies: text: The Muhammad Ali quote also seems to be misattributed. 118.209.115.203 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kennedy quote

message: "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)
thread_title:  Hollobone private member's bill 

message: 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'.The anecdote is represented in, or is coming from Cronin's 1935 novel The Stars Look Down.
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've deleted the section. If any of it can be reliably sourced then it is welcome to be added back. Opencooper (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major sourcing issues with "Criticisms" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  C.O. as refers to military service ONLY? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/003/2011/en/f9644fa3-b9aa-4bfd-abf7-7494d30f4889/eur440032011en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604230023/http://www.ccrh.org/oral/co.pdf to http://www.ccrh.org/oral/co.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919181648/http://www.peaceabbey.org/confcenter/coregistry.htm to http://www.peaceabbey.org/confcenter/coregistry.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) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common Questions in United States hearings 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR010041997?open&of=ENG-2EU
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009185413/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/Jan/Chamberjudgment%C3%9ClkevTurkey240106.htm to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/Jan/Chamberjudgment%C3%9ClkevTurkey240106.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229033706/http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/palexander/ to http://www.apu.edu/theology/faculty/palexander/
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) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added  tag to http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/jilp/issues/33/pdf/33n.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912162219/http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html to http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308102144/http://www.seruv.org.il/english/article.asp?msgid=55&type=news to http://www.seruv.org.il/english/article.asp?msgid=55&type=news
*Added  tag to http://www.sidadventist.org/lead/index.php/resources/essent/89-leadership
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815073949/http://www.sdarm.org/origin.htm to http://www.sdarm.org/origin.htm
*Added  tag to http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/jilp/issues/33/pdf/33n.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525232027/http://www.jw-media.org/kor/index.htm to http://www.jw-media.org/kor/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726144917/http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/20784 to http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/20784
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111130234/http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20090126.htm to http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20090126.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218010933/http://jw-media.org/kor/20081231rpt.htm to http://jw-media.org/kor/20081231rpt.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007145556/http://jw-media.org/kor/20110902.htm to http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20110902.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020211/http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=2 to http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402150820/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/plan_actions/docs/Korea_Summary_NHRAP.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/plan_actions/docs/Korea_Summary_NHRAP.doc
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) 08:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517135236/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/I3k.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/I3k.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-25-2005-70478.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609013136/http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90045 to http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90045
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409222531/http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/2053881B-5606-42C4-977E-120AF07B8C73/0/FICHES_Objection_de_conscience_EN.pdfEuropeanCourt to http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/2053881B-5606-42C4-977E-120AF07B8C73/0/FICHES_Objection_de_conscience_EN.pdfEuropeanCourt
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) 05:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CdNYMpt9?url=http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/003/2011/en/f9644fa3-b9aa-4bfd-abf7-7494d30f4889/eur440032011en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/003/2011/en/f9644fa3-b9aa-4bfd-abf7-7494d30f4889/eur440032011en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118175710/http://wri-irg.org/pdf/eu-rtba2008update-en.pdf to http://wri-irg.org/pdf/eu-rtba2008update-en.pdf
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) 09:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: One more thing: four WikiProjects are involved in this article, and all of them presumably intend that involvement to regard military service. While perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity could be involved in any matter of conscience, I don't think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history would care about a generalized form of this article. Gmarmstrong (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited definition 

message: 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.
98.102.79.214 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "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.
SandJ-on-WP (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: To quote his grandson John "He was not a conscientious objector - he was very much against that. He volunteered to go in and it was very hard to be on the front line as a volunteer." (Burton Daily Mail 5 November 2018 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/william-coltman-burton-victoria-cross-2126973 ) Nedrutland (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Claim (William Coltman) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  antisovereignist is a vague term... it usually means not to accept any authority  (vague because not only people have authority, social notions also do) 

message: Hi 
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?
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a term for non military objection on the same grounds? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quakers in the United Kingdom in the 18th Century