Talk:Draft evasion

message: Soldiers were allowed into Canada as refugees.
The WWI draft dodgers were able to easily evade the draft, as no one expected such an action to be taken among so many.  Rules and regulations were created, making it exceedingly difficult, such as in the Vietnam War, to Draft Dodge once again.
==== 1000 Deserters to Canada in total?  ====
I do not believe US soldiers nor draft dodgers
were ever given refugee status in Canada.
However, a person's previous involvement in military organizations 
had no bearing on immigration to Canada.
I have seen estimates of up to 50000 particularly after 1968.
In any case, 1000 is too low. By 1970, when I entered Canada,
the Toronto Anti-draft program people were estimating a 
deserter to dodger ratio of 4:1.
Also, the term draft dodger was used by my father to describe
his cousin who worked on the Alaska highway rather than join the 
military durng WW 2.  It did not originate with Vietnam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.248.0.43 (talk • contribs) .
: I believe "draft dodgers" were treated very differently from deserters (i.e. actual soldiers) by Canada during the Vietnam War.  CBC cites a figure of 40000-60000 here in an article about Jeremy Hinzman. --Saforrest 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldiers as refugees 

message: I do not believe US soldiers nor draft dodgers
were ever given refugee status in Canada.
However, a person's previous involvement in military organizations 
had no bearing on immigration to Canada.
I have seen estimates of up to 50000 particularly after 1968.
In any case, 1000 is too low. By 1970, when I entered Canada,
the Toronto Anti-draft program people were estimating a 
deserter to dodger ratio of 4:1.
Also, the term draft dodger was used by my father to describe
his cousin who worked on the Alaska highway rather than join the 
military durng WW 2.  It did not originate with Vietnam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.248.0.43 (talk • contribs) .
: I believe "draft dodgers" were treated very differently from deserters (i.e. actual soldiers) by Canada during the Vietnam War.  CBC cites a figure of 40000-60000 here in an article about Jeremy Hinzman. --Saforrest 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 Deserters to Canada in total?  

message: I can't think of how to possibly modify it, but I'm rather bothered by the "other uses." It is just too broad. I mean, a draft dodger is someone who actively pursues a course of avoidance. A draft resister challenges the system up front. Minor means of avoidance, such as claiming the ever popular "trick knee" or seeking a student deferment are attempts to "play the system" which is not the same as dodging--i.e., at least in the context of Vietnam there was no shame at all attached to it, at least among peers. Enlisting in the National Guard or Reserve does not rise to the level of draft dodging--in fact, until Vietnam the <I>U.S. Government</I> used to run ads telling you that you could avoid active duty by enlisting in the reserves (in order to fill the ranks of reservists). It is also not right to include sincere COs. CO was not easy to get, you could still be drafted for an noncombatant, and COs during WWII actually went to jail. Including medics is frankly outrageous. Medics were, by the nature of their job, in some of the most dangerous situations in any war. COs who were medics did it to avoid having to carry a weapon in war, not to avoid danger. -- Cecropia 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses of the term 

message: Although the US has deserters from Iraqi and Afghanistan, aren't they all volunteers? It doesn't appear to make sense to grant asylum to someone who willing joined the army. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.108.71.91 (talk • contribs) 2 March 2006.
::Canada is apparently willing to grant asylum to soldiers who claim they have been forced to take part in improper activities, even though their joining the service was voluntary.
::This section has a sentence about "fragging" which is a repetition of a sentence in the first section. I see that someone has added "citation needed" to this second instance, but surely one or the other is redundant and should be removed. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the lengthy description of Quayle’s National Guard Service and so very little about Cheney or Biden's draft dodging -- both of whom did everything short of maiming themselves to avoid Military service (neither had the guts to do it – I guess it’s a prerequisite for VP). By contrast here Biden and Cheney make "W" look like a war hero! (For the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!).  Finally, the explanation of President Clinton’s Draft history is incorrect.  For the truth I would refer you to the Wikipedia Bill Clinton entry and click on footnote 22. ^ "frontline: the clinton years: bill clinton's draft letter". PBS. 1991-11-23. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html. Retrieved 2009-08-06.  You can see it in his own words how he lied to his draft board to avoid the draft.  This is actually a violation of Federal Law for which he was never prosecuted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present ramifications 

message: I have been coming across random messages, such as the one that reads keesha wolfe is fugly (which is situated in the paragraph describing consciencios objectors). Could someone please put a lock on this page or something. Its getting to be annoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.38.99.7 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2006.
: Not nearly the level for protection. Easily reverted, not actually an article that gets a lot of vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on the page 

message: I've read that Switzerland also accepted US draft dodgers, in addition to Canada and Sweden. Can anyone verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.148.169 (talk • contribs).
:Uninformed answer: certainly where Sylvester Stallone sat out the war. But I suspect that if you took up longterm residency in Switzerland, you had to be willing to serve in the Swiss Army; at least at that time they had universal service. - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional countries that attracted US draft dodgers 

message: IMHO, this whole page is POV. It's entirely focused on the American experience & Vietnam. Where are Canadian (Quebecois) evaders? Americans in Civil War, WWI, WW2? (For instance, Garrison's Civil War Trivia Fact Book has 1250 deserters a week, with "run money" {as USN called it}, paid for returning them, starting at $5, rising to $30 by the end of the war.) And where are Brits, French, Germans, Japanese, Russians? This is supposed to be an international project, not Encyclopedia Uncle Sam.  Trekphiler 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complain or contribute? Ymous 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it.  Also it would be interesting to track it at different times, of course.  Joseph René Vilatte apparently dodged the draft in Napoleonic France by moving to Belgium so he didn't have to be in the army for 7 years.  Tempshill (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Artless dodger

message: Just speaking as perhaps one of the few people reading this who was actually drafted, the entire article has many problems.  I tried to slip into the Guard, but had no connections and didn't know the right people.  Because my father was a WW II veteran and he wanted me to serve or avoid service properly, I entered law school and was a 4.0 student there.  Nevertheless, I had a rural draft board and they needed a warm body and so off to Vietnam I went in 1968.  
It is necessary, in any discussion of draft-dodging, to cite the many politicians who dodged it.  It isn't partisan to do so because plenty of Democrats and Republicans dodged the draft.  It is relevant to point out politicians who dodged because of the hypocrisy angle.  It is hypocritical to say you seek public service when the job has safety and prestige, but to not have sought public service when the job was very dangerous.
It was also silly to say Clinton's primary reason to avoid the draft was to avoid any break in his career.  Heck, everybody's primary motive was to avoid being killed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.230 (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: The use of so many politicians as examples smacks of agenda-pushing.  Granted, it serves to taint a variety of them, from both major US parties, but that's still an agenda.  As much as I like to see hipocrites like ___ and ___ and especially ___ exposed for what they are, this isn't the place for it, so I propose these examples all be removed.  If examples of each kind of draft-dodging are needed, the article should use hypotheticals. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political examples 

message: I was thinking of adding :Category:History of Canada here, or even :Category:Ethnic groups in Canada; maybe a subarticle American draft dodgers in Canada might be worthwhile because of the special impact on Canada and Canadian society this migration had, and also the high profile many of these same individuals attatined in Canadian society.  I'll read the article overleaf to see what is andisn't in it, just fielding this suggestion, and wondering about including a Canadian category.  I'll definitely add the WPCan template if it's not already here though...Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: This header, "Cumulative Effects of Exemptions on African-Americans", seems to have been inserted into the middle of a more general section. It's awkward and untidy. The text does touch on this issue both before and after the header, but then returns to the more general subject. If it is felt necessary to give this aspect of the issue a header, the relevant subject matter ought to be separated out and placed in its own section. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Read the rest of this section to hear the myth generated by the anti-war movement and even persists to this day that blacks served and died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam. Here are the facts. Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At that time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. The other persistent myth is that Blacks were grossly over represented in combat. This is not supported by the casualty data which shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although slightly higher than the proportion serving in combat, it is less than the Black percentage of the general population at that time. Source: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981. Data confirmed by the World History Center (http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm)."  TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumulative Effects of Exemptions on African-Americans? 

message: This "Less sober texts on draft "avoidance" (as opposed to "resistance" as described below) included "One Hundred and One Ways to Avoid the Draft" by musician Tuli Kupferberg, a member of The Fugs. Methods he espoused included arriving at the draft board in diapers or feigning homosexuality. Another text popular with men subject to the draft was a 1950s cartoon novella by Jules Feiffer, Munro, in which a four year old boy is drafted by mistake. Some men, taking an idea from the book, said they might ask the sergeant at the draft examination to "button me, Mister", but usually these schemes came to naught in an era where homophobia was normed, and only partly deconstructed by the antics of the counterculture." is also here  (http://www.allergymedicine.us/Draft_dodger/encyclopedia.htm), but it isn't clear to me which is copied from which.  (It also isn't clear in either source what the phrase, "Button me, Mister" means.) DOR (HK) (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: rm 
because "Draft Dodger" is a US-specific term. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not.  See D-Day Dodgers, which claims (accurately) that dodgers is generic English.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK English-Speaking then (giving benefit of the doubt) but definitely not global. A simple title change and then redirecting "Draft dodger" to the globalized title would then justify the tag. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the distinction. The article is written in English. "Conscription Avoidance" or any other English language term could also be characterised as "English-speaking but not global" (as if English were only spoken in some small part of the globe, like French). The concept is a global one, writing an article about it in English would naturally employ the accepted English terminology, not some made up English term, and an article in another language would use that language's own terminology for the concept. There is no global term and you cannot invent one. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also prejudicial to claim that "draft dodgers" is a "US-specific term"....it's not as if Canada were part of hte US, you know....we got the bulk of US exiles in the '60s, and they're an important social/historical fact up here, especially in certain areas and in certain professions.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conscription avoidance" strikes me as being both a neologism and a euhemerism, and is nowhere near the most widely-used term.Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't see how it could be a euhermerism with no association with a person. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Neither is a noun phrase a neologism. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you mean "splitting hairs". Oops! TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "splitting hairs" + "nitpicking" = "picking hairs".  "Creative semantic aphasia" is kinda becoming my thing....Skookum1 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not 'Conscription Avoidance' 

message: I came here looking specifically for information on draft dodging in countries other than the US, but this article, while it has a neutral title and acknowledges other contries, is pretty much focused on US draft dodging.  Also, I think something should be said about what the punishment for draft dodging is.  209.176.79.34 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a header pointing out the US centricity of the article. It's because mostly US (or ex-US) writers have contributed, and most of them left over from the Vietnam era. One supposes there are fewer contributors available from other backgrounds. If you have another country's take on the subject, why not write it up? I only know (more than I want to really) about the US draft, and they don't even have one anymore. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Bias 

message: This is in the first paragraph under Vietnam War, North America.
Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although slightly higher than the proportion serving in combat, it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time.
The numbers show Black casualties to be proportionally 1.5% higher than enlisted and 1.4% below the military age cohort.  Yet the former is described as "slight" and the latter "significant".
66.183.245.10 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers do not support biased wording 

message: :Claiming to be homosexual, when the military in question excludes homosexuals - this would be considered evasion if the claim was false, and avoidance if the claim is true. 
This is uncited and questionable. Why would telling the truth about who you are always be considered avoidance? Even more so nowadays since many gay men in those developed countries like the US which maintain such policies may be already out of the closet so are effectively being forced to go back in otherwise are allegedly 'avoiding the draft'. It's not their fault that their military refuses to let them serve because of who they are. In fact, considering they could potentially be at risk of harassment or worse, it would seem logical that they would want to know they are protected, which is questionable if they are unable to honestly tell people who they are. You may be able to argue this is true in some cases, i.e. when the person mentions it with the sole purpose of avoiding the draft, but not in all cases as this IMHO implies.
(And we're not even discussing the fact evidence suggests if they only semi-hide who they are, everyone is fine with them in wartime but not so fine during more peaceful times. Or extreme examples like someone who tried to voluntarily enlist at 18 with numerous request, attempts etc but was continually rejected because he was unwilling to hide the fact he was gay; then a war happens, the draft occurs and suddenly he's avoiding the draft. ) 
Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telling the truth is avoidance? 

message: keeps on adding the following text to the article. I have been removing it.
Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although higher than the proportion serving in combat, it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time. (Source: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981.
My reasons for removal are:
* The reason why it is should be included in an article about Draft dodging is unclear
* It needs better sourcing to verify
* It seems to be using synthesis to advocate a point. 
If  insists on adding this, then I will bring a third opinion. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that The-Expose-inator added his opinion on the matter on my talk page .  --CutOffTies (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I am sorry if I offended anyone's reputation by including the names of the editors. Thank you also for pointing out that it is cited.  Regardless of the quality of the source, my main concern is that the content seems out of place in this article (which you addressed and agree with) and the use of synthesis to advocate a point (which you didn't address). Therefore, I again removed it.  If it is reverted again I suppose the original research noticeboard is a good place to bring up my concerns about the synthesis.  Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the third opinion given above, and the comments on the original research noticeboard here Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Synthesis_on_Draft_dodger regarding both the use of original research and the content not being appropriate for an article on draft dodger, I removed the disputed content again.  I still have not received any talk from the editor regarding this specific content- only reversions.  Among  many issues is that this content simply does not pertain to the article. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  African American military figures in Vietnam War 

message: Several passages in this article at totally undocumented statements that are totally opinion and possibly false yet remain unchallenged.  I can only suspect that because the facts don’t conform to the general anti-war bias of the article, they are allowed to remain.  Here are some of the numerous undocumented passages in this article and comments/facts refuting each:
-- This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college.[citation needed]
How many exactly is “Considerable?”  Also, “including African-Americans” is this two or were there more?  This statement adds nothing, is completely unsourced and is opinior with no basis in fact.
--  Large groups of draft eligible men publicly burned draft cards.[citation needed]
Again, “Large groups” – I would agree “some” publically burned draft cards but because it was illegal and punishable (by being drafted), proportionally it was not many that did it.  The newspapers and TV publicizing those that did might have made it seem like “large groups” but it was a tiny piece of the draft cohort that actually risked it.
--Since the National Guard was slated only for domestic security, service in the National Guard guaranteed protection from deploying to Vietnam. Vocations to the ministry and the rabbinate soared, as divinity students were exempt from the draft.[citation needed] Doctors and draft board members found themselves being pressured by relatives or family friends to exempt potential draftees.
Is there some proof of any of this?  I would point out that a few National Guard units were activated and sent to Vietnam including the California National Guard (didn’t go as units but individual replacements) but more famously, the Kentucky National Guard’s 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery which served in 1968-69 in support of the regular 101st Airborne Division. The Battalion's C Battery out of Bardstown lost 9 men killed and thirty-two wounded when North Vietnamese troops overran Fire Base Tomahawk on June 19, 1969.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States ) .  This is history so this statement is obviously false.
-- in at least one case, a man who went to the movies, at the Biograph Theater in Chicago, every night on the week before the draft to eat buttered popcorn.[citation needed]
Talk about questionable and un-documentable passages.  Was he trying to OD on popcorn?  This statement is so ridiculous it needs no counter yet no one has challenged it?
-- During the Vietnam War, about 100,000 draft dodgers, in total, went abroad; others hid in the United States.[citation needed] An estimated 50,000 to 90,000 of these moved to Canada…
According to the definitive book on the subject, “Chance and Circumstance” (page 169) the total number of accused draft Evaders (Dodgers) was 210,000 with only 30,000 leaving the country.  The TOTAL number of Deserters and Evaders total that went to Canada was about 30,000.  Now that is sourced and this passage is patently false and greatly exagerated.
I would finally point out that in the 1972 Presidential election, Nixon ran on a platform continuing our involvement in Vietnam and won the election in a landslide with 60.7% of the popular vote and the fourth largest margin of victory in the popular vote (23.2%) in presidential election history. He received almost 18 million more popular votes than McGovern—the widest margin of any U.S. presidential election. McGovern, who would have had us out of Vietnam before the end of his Inaugural Speech, only won the electoral votes of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  This would certainly indicate that a “silent majority” didn’t want to abandon South Vietnam. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 )
::In response to this, I agree that the sourcing is terrible in the entire article.  As with any article, this editor encourages removal of unsourced information and the addition of on-topic, npov information backed by reliable sources --CutOffTies (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'd like to second (third?) your thoughts.  I just created a fully sourced paragraph for this article - the one beside the draft-counseling photo in the last sub-section - and was amazed to discover that my one paragraph is now responsible for one-third of the citations in the entire article.  People, cite your sources, please! - Babel41 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have just made all the References in the entire article as consistent as possible, using a clear, straightforward format that even inexperienced contributors should be able to adapt to.  Hopefully that will make it easier for us to add citations {"References") when we're contributing facts and ideas to this article. - Babel41 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comment About the Entire Article

message: During its entire existance, the Amex phone lines were bugged by intelligence services. Phone calls were answered by a recorded warning message not to speak any information that could idenitfy the caller. I had 3 or 4 occasions to call that number. They also issued a monthly newsletter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.174.20 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Amex

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Draft evasion. 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/20070521215056/http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml to http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006225530/http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm to http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.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) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Draft evasion. 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/20100310214009/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0911.fallows.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0911.fallows.html
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) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just revised the "Avoidance, evasion, resistance and desertion compared" section of this article.  I have maintained its principal focus, on the types of evasion.  However, I have changed it in eight ways to make it more consistent with Wikipedia's rules and easier to follow:
THE EIGHT CHANGES
1. The old title was too clunky.  "Draft evasion practices" gets the reader started, and the sub-section titles indicate that comparisons are being made.  Also, the old section does not mention desertion (though the word is in its title) – perhaps it did at one time.  Anyway, I agree that desertion does not belong here.  It is obviously not draft evasion, and this article has too much ground to cover (much of which is still not covered!, see last paragraphs below) to bring up other war-resistance topics here.  I have placed a link to Wikipedia's "Desertion" article intro this article's "See also" section.  In addition, over the next day or two I will add a new "Larger issues" section toward the end of our article where draft evasion will be looked atr in its broader political / philosophical context.
2. The old section reads like a personal essay, with only a couple of references to sources strewn in.  Unlike blogs and social media, Wikipedia is a rules-bound encyclopedia.  All facts, information, and insights are expected to be backed up by reliable sources.  That is doubly important in articles on politically sensitive topics like this one.  (See WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying Reliable Sources.)  I have therefore used what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources in making every point in this section.  In addition, all the draft evasion practices are now properly sourced.  
3. I have added a broader array of representative draft evasion practices, and have arranged them in logical order.
4. In the old section, random examples of draft evasion had been appended to some of the draft evasion practices.  This created clutter, as the practices are easy to grasp and the next section – on draft evasion in the different nations – is a better place to give the examples, i.e. to show how and where the various practices were undertaken.  Thus, I have moved the examples that are properly sourced to where they belong in the national section.  As it happens, all three of them – on Ted Nugent, LDS/Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump – fell into the Vietnam War sub-sub-section of the United States sub-section.
5. I have however removed the examples that were not properly sourced (aka referenced).  As cannot be stated too often for new and inexperienced contributors, Wikipedia is a rules-bound encyclopedia whose content must be based on reliable sources, it is not a bulletin board where contributors (however well-informed) can share unsourced facts and information.  In addition, small, highly partisan websites are not considered reliable sources of facts or information.  For more on what Wikipedia considers appropriate sourcing, see WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources.
6. The old version of this section was dominated by the U.S. experience of draft evasion during the Vietnam War.  I have tried to word the draft evasion practices so that they're less U.S.-specific, and I've managed to cite a couple of sources that refer to, e.g., contemporary Russia, 19th century Europe, and ancient Greece!
7. The long quote from the James C. Scott book is too far from the topic of this section to include here.  However, just a couple of pages away in his book is a passage that lends itself beautifully not only to this section but to this whole article.  I'll be including it as a "Quote Box" soon.
8. The old section included just one image (picture, photograph) - of an anti-draft riot.  I have retained it, but have added three other images that convey different dimensions of our subject.
FURTHER COMMENTS
If you click on this article's "View History" tab, you'll see that I've made a bunch of other recent additions to this article.  I will stop soon.  I hope that over the months ahead you will also add to this article, while always drawing on and citing reliable sources (see #2 and #5 above).
In particular, the section on the different nations needs much work – as you'll see, four nations were written up without the use of any sources (and will be removed if not sourced or redone soon), other nations are barely mentioned, and nations like Brazil, China, India, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa have yet to be reported upon.  I will soon be adding a "Larger issues" section that will provide space for political and philosophical issues surrounding draft evasion that have been raised by scholars and others.
Draft evasion is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia; young people in challenging circumstances around the world are surely looking to it with special interest.  As a result, we have a special obligation to make it as clear, as objective, and as credibly sourced as any of Wikipedia's WP:Featured articles. - Babel41 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the "Avoidance [etc.]" section, January 2018 

message: Hi Clupo1, - I have once again reverted the unreliable source you have continued to use, and am also reverting  the two additions it relied upon in your last edit d. 25 April 2018.  Both additions are redundant.  I am explaining my reversions at length below.  If you do not agree with them, you are welcome to refute them below and then seek mediation through a neutral party at Wikipedia, WP:Requests for mediation.
1.  Reversion of source.  Because the Draft evader article is controversial, it is careful to use only the most reliable sources as defined at WP:RS.  The "We Are the Mighty" website no longer produces a Security Alert on my computer.  But it is still not a reliable source as defined by WP.  Not only is it not notable per WP:Notability (organizations and companies), but "Mighty Networks," its sponsor / copyright holder, is just a website-building site, see https://mightynetworks.com.  The author of the article does not appear to be notable either, see WP:Notability (people).
2. Reversion of first text addition.  The introduction to the "United States / Viernam War" sub-section consists of a brief, one-sentence summary of the material to follow.  It includes the fact that some draft evaders went to Canada.  There is no reason to belabor that point, as you do, by adding a second sentence focusing on Canada (not to mention that your unreliable source's 40,000 number does not reflect the floor of 30,000 attributed to several highly reliable sources in the first two paragraphs of the "Emigration to Canada" sub-section, and that your verb, "fled to" Canada, is not neutral language as called for by WP:NPOV).
3.  Reversion of second text addition.  Here you have created an new fourth section for the entire article, "Punishment," consisting entirely of one sentence describing some possible legal consequences of failure to register for the draft in the United States.  The Draft evasion article does takes draft evasion as a legal matter seriously.  That is why, in the very first paragraph, this article states that draft evasion "is generally considered to be a criminal offense, and laws against it go back thousands of years." (Two highly reliable sources are cited.)  The first paragraph also links to WP's excellent Conscription law article.
But the Draft evasion article covers draft evasion in many nations over time.  It does not focus on the contemporary United States.  Conscription laws and the consequences of violating them vary tremendously from nation to nation and era to era.  Contributors to this article have, rightly I think, chosen not to create separate "Conscription law" and / or "Punishment" (or, more neutrally, "Consequences") sections, but have chosen to weave that information into the different "By country" descriptions whenever they deemed it appropriate.  If you look at the first paragraph of the "United States" sub-section, you will see that much of what you placed in your "Punishment" section is already there.
I hope these comments help you see why your source is not reliable (for WP purposes) and your text additions were redundant.  I see you are a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia.  Please note that it took me and takes almost everyone a while to get their bearings here.  Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted Clupo1's latest additions 

message: This revert caught my eye. Perhaps these sources might fit:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics of draftees 

message: A section title like that, is just obvious culture war, and flame-war bait; more to the point, policy-wise, is that it's unencyclopedic. Try to picture an article with that name in Britannica; it sounds more like something from the Daily Mail, or National Enquirer.  In my opinion, the entire section should be removed; it doesn't belong here, and adds little or nothing to an actual encyclopedic discussion of draft evasion. That said, trying to remove the entire section would probably just ignite further warring, and I'm not interested in stoking that.  Instead, I'll just deal with the low-hanging fruit: Rush Limbaugh's politics and Chevy Chase's politics are available one click away at the articles concerning them; it is completely improper to say "conservative Mr Smith" and "liberal Mr. Jones" as it just so obviously tries to stoke a war on which traitorous group is more tainted by the scarlet letter.  Think about an article on comedy, that said, "Jew Jon Stewart had a hit with the Daily Show" and "Mainline Christian Bob Hope went on many tours in war zones."  It's entirely irrelevant for the topic, and is just so obviously there for nefarious purposes. Wikipedia cannot allow itself to be used that way.  I'm going to remove all the political identifiers from this section where they do not belong.  If someone wants a tally to prove that the liberals are massive draft dodgers and fake homosexuality or illnesses, or that conservatives have connections in high places and get off for minor podiatric conditions, probably faked, I don't have the slightest problem with that.  All you have to do, is follow Wikipedia policy: find a reliable source that gives a count of famous personalities who have avoided the draft and breaks it down by political persuasion, summarize it, and cite it. And make sure to avoid WP:SYNTH. Also, someone should change the section name, it's just awful.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. I did what I could with that section. It's just so clearly not about "prominent people" but "prominent U.S. people known for their views on the left or the right (the more extreme, the better)". The whole section smells of American culture war battlefield fumes, with editors on the left and on the right getting their licks in and keeping things in precarious balance, and so obviously not about helping the reader understand Draft evasion. I'm too new here to boldly delete the whole section, but it needs to be.  I hope the regulars here, on *both* sides of the political spectrum, will see the advantage of doing so, call a truce, and put this section out of its misery for everyone's benefit. Bury it deep, and then get on with improving this article for our readers.  Because that's what we're all here for, right?  Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent people arguably manipulating the system