Talk:Draft evasion

The term

"Canada also later chose to accept deserters..." According to the resources I can find, a deserter who came to Canada could have been extradited to the US, as desertion (unlike draft dodging) is a crime in Canada. Did many deserters come to Canada?

Also, I understood "draft dodger" to include not only those who went to other countries, but also those who stayed put and attempted to evade the draft while remaining in the US. Clarification? - Montréalais 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually the opening of the article is inaccurate. "Draft Dodger" as a term goes back at least to WWI and possibily earlier.

"Draft dodger" was a sort of umbrella term for anyone who wanted to avoid the draft, though it was most used for the most visible--those who went to Canada or (earlier) Sweden. More specifically, you had draft evaders, those who stayed in the US and tried techniques from pretending to be sick to doing things to keep off the 1-A list (college, marriage, quietly attemtping to refuse--Clinton was effectively a draft evader." Then you had draft resisters, not a large number, who paid public shows of resistance, tried not to register, some did not show up for induction or wouldn't take the oath. Finally draft refusers, who stood up and refused (the only really honest ones, IMO) which included conscientious objectors. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "deserter" is problematic. I have a letter which my commanding officer sent my father saying I had been "dropped from the rolls as a deserter" after being AWOL (absent without leave) for only 7 days. I believe at the time (1966) the army did not turn one's case over to the FBI until one had been AWOL for a month. But still, one was not a deserter until a court martial said so. If captured and charged, there were many defences against the charge of desertion, even if one had been absent for considerable periods. Referring to people such as myself, who went AWOL and remain at large, as deserters, is incorrect. Alleged deserters, perhaps, or absconders, but not deserters until they are convicted as such. To answer a question above, yes, absconders as well as evaders went to Canada, but Toronto was only a stopover for me. I went on to my country of birth, Great Britain. Yes, foreign citizens were drafted too. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference this passage: “Those who practice draft evasion are sometimes pejoratively referred to as "draft dodgers," a term which was made popular during the Vietnam War.”

It seems to me if the article is going to reference the Vietnam era, it should use the best definition of the term at the time. My Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1968) simply defines Draft Dodger as: “One who avoids military service.” The dictionary does not distinguish among Avoidance, Evasion or Resistance. As an aside, when I was in Vietnam, we considered anyone that “got out of serving” regardless how they did it, as a Draft Dodger.

I would recommend this sentence be changed to the following to conform to what was the commonly accepted definition at the time:

“Term "draft dodger" was made popular during the Vietnam War and at the time was pejoratively used to refer to anyone who avoided military service.” The-Expose-inator (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that someone has simply moved the whole article to a new term, without discussion and without regard to previous discussions/outcomes, I don't see any point in continuing to quibble about it. It seems to me that the term "draft dodger" exists, and needs an article about it (and not about something else which someone might think was a nicer way of putting it), but I no longer care about the Orwellian redefinition of the universe that Wikipedia has become. Struggle amongst yourselves for dominance. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers as refugees

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)

Sorry, lad. I am one of those vietnam era draft dodgers who still lives in Canada. I personally knew at least 15 to 20 deserters quite well. They were treated exactly the same as a dodger. The only requirement to stay in Canada was to legally immigrate as a "landed immigrant". Once that was done, there were no strings beyond the normal restrictions on any other immigrant. One of my deserter acquaintances once made the observation the "the only real difference between a draft dodger and a deserter was foresight." And, as far as I'm concerned, 1000 total deserters during Vietnam is far too low. Sounds like someone has an agenda to discredit desertion here.

Furthermore the following weblink maintained by Joesph Jones at the University of British Columbia Library, makes the following statement: "What upper bound on numbers is indicated by U.S. statistics? An official U.S. review of the data cites 209,517 cases of accused draft offenders and 100,000 less-than-honorable military discharges for absence offenses – a total that exceeds 300,000. By the 1977 Carter pardon the same source estimates a total of 11,000 American offenders at large, the “overwhelming majority” in exile. In the early 1970s the United States made liberal use of administrative measures to reduce embarrassing numbers." http://www.library.ubc.ca/jones/hstrnt.html

Someone needs to double check the figures listed, because right now the article says 30,000 evaded the draft by going to Canada, and the next paragraph it says 50,000 ended up remaining in Canada after the amnesty. That don't make sense. 209.237.85.251 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

removed clean-up tag

The article seems of pretty average cleanliness to me at this point. If anyone disagrees feel free to replace it. Kalkin

"...or otherwise broke any laws"

In the section on US politicans and "draft dodging" charges, the phrase "or otherwise broke any laws" was added to the claim that none of the US candidates accused of draft dodging actually refused conscription and/or fled the country.

I'm not sure about that. Some politicians have been accused of rather dubious (and possibly illegal) activites regarding military service, such as having strings pulled in order to receive preferential treatment from military officials, in order to secure safe postings like Guard assignments. Ignoring the question of whether or not the public officials so accused actually did this--the question remains:

• Would it be illegal? Or is it a permissible use of military judgment for a National Guard commander to save a spot for the son of a friendly politician?
• If such activities occured, then who is the lawbreaker? The young man who receives the preferential treatment? His father, uncle, or whoever who arranged for it to occur? The military official which cooperated with this?

I don't know the answers. Pulling such strings to avoid military service certainly strikes me as unethical (especially if the individual in question is pro-war, but doesn't want his own ass in the combat zone), and is not a desirable trait to have in a public official--but I don't know if it is actually illegal or not.

Depending on the answers to the above, it might be better if the claim were reversed. I'm leaving it for now, but let's discuss.--EngineerScotty 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole National Guard business is greatly overblown because of the current Iraq situation. Being in the Guard or Reserves was considered a perfectly honorable way (at least in the broader society) of trying to avoid the risks of Vietnam It was not guaranteed and I personally know of at least one person who was in the Guard and did end up in Vietnam (involuntarily). Please remember that as late as 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton, a person who actually refused service, was twice elected President. -- Cecropia 06:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clinton refused service? When and where? He had a legal student deferment early in the war (and one that he, as an excellent student and a Rhodes scholar certainly deserved). When student deferment ended, Clinton was subject to the draft--but had a high lottery number and was never called. The only way that Clinton "refused" service is that he didn't run down to the local recruitment office and enlist voluntarily. At no point was he ever conscripted.

At any rate, thousands of young men tried to enlist in the Guard, the Navy, the Coast Guard, ROTC, or numerous other places where the chance of them getting shot at by the Viet Cong would be considerably lower. Unlike today (where the Guard is getting a significant share of duty in Iraq), the National Guard was generally a safe place to be during Vietnam. There were many more people who wanted in than there were slots available; to many, seeing the children of the rich and powerful getting to go to the front of the line seems unseemly (and may, in fact, constitute an abuse of power). --EngineerScotty 07:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it was the children of the rich and powerful that got into the Guard and Reserves? I could have gotten in and I'm about as unrich and unpowerful as you get. The children of the rich and powerful mostly got out of the service altogether. As to avoiding service, first he used William Fulbright's office to land a position in the ROTC at his university in order to avoid the draft, then requested a year deferment of his obligation to begin basic training in order to attend Oxford. Later, when he was to be called to fulfill his commitment (he didn't serve in the military, did he?) he told the Colonel (I think it was) that he didn't want to fulfill his commitment. Seems like refusal to me. -- Cecropia 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're thinking of the letter to Colonel Holmes, that was written after Clinton received a high lottery number (and was thus safe from the draft). Prior to the lottery, the draft board had sent out two induction notices, but withdrew them for various reasons. Many have alleged undue influence in the process, in the case of the second withdrawl the decision was up to a (different) colonel.

Of course, much of went on was part of the duty of pre-lottery draft boards--to decide who, among the eligible young men of the local community, was to become cannon fodder, and who wasn't. Not every man of age got drafted. Many thought the whole process unfair (and I agree with this), which was why--in large part--the lottery was instituted and the various deferments abolished. At any rate, Clinton is certainly entitled to plead his case to his local draft board, that's how draft boards operated (and how millions of young men sought to avoid service). At any rate, I fail to see how the accusations against Clinton in this regard are any more serious than those against Bush or other politicians. Both political parties have demonstrated hypocrisy on the issue. --EngineerScotty 08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clinton sought Fulbright's help to get the ROTC spot in the first place, and this got him a 1-D draft status, which was reserved for people who were slated for the Guard or Reserves. He still had this status in October of 1969, when Nixon announced that the October eligibles would fill the slots for October, November and December. IOW, if you weren't drafted in the October pool, you were safe for 1969. On December 1, Clinton learned he had the very high draft number of 311, freeing him from jeopardy in 1970. On December 2 he applied to Yale, abandoning the University where he would have served in the ROTC, and on December 3, he wrote to Colonel Holmes. Is this so terrible? Not in my estimation, but if Bush was in little jeopardy by being in the Air National Guard, he was in more jeopardy and served more than Clinton ever did, and it was the height of hypocisy, after two terms of Clinton, to try sink Bush's presidency on the bogus Air Guard issue. -- Cecropia 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a point about the National Guard. It wasn't all that hard to get into the National Guard and Reserves in most states, if you made your mind to do it before the Selective Service was breathing down your neck. This was because most people who hoped to avoid service hoped to avoid it altogether. -- Cecropia 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, slots filled up very quickly, a lot depending on when you came of age. Older young men often could get guard slots, but those who turned 18 in the late 60s or early 70s were generally screwed. By that time, the war was already unpopular, resistance of many forms was high, and most of the Guard slots had already been filled. --EngineerScotty 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Older young men" got into the Guard? I'd really like to know where you got that impression? I don't think you're old enough to have experienced it yourself. You did not enlist in the Guard or Reserves through Selective Service, you went to a recruiter. If you were older, it almost always meant that you had had deferments of one or another kind, and SSS went after you first. At that point, the Guard or Reserves may not have helped you, even if they wanted you. -- Cecropia 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by that was, men who became draft-eligible earlier in the war had a better chance of securing a "safe" spot, fulfilling their commitment, and thus immune to being drafted for duty in Vietnam; not that getting a deferment woule make you less likely to be drafted when your deferment ran out. You're right in that I'm way too young; what I know I know from reading lots of material, and from my own father who was of draft age at that time. He managed to get a Guard spot (without benefit of any political influence or illegal maneuvers), and didn't have to go to Vietnam. (He has some interesting stories about this...) Of course, he's never run for office so nobody cares whether he went to Vietnam or not.--EngineerScotty 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see your dad and I could both get in the Guard (but I didn't want to) without illegality or political influence. That should count for at least something in addition to your readings. ;-) -- Cecropia 08:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Other uses of the term

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 U.S. Government 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)

Present ramifications

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)

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)

Can we move this to a more neutral title?

This article lumps together three things:

• "Draft evader", a legal category, people who illegally avoid conscription
• "Draft resister", a political category, a subset of war resisters who specifically resist conscription, either through draft evasion or through willingly facing prison sentences rather than be conscripted
• "Draft dodger", a pejorative that may refer to either of the above, or to conscientious objectors and others who avoid being drafted (or merely avoid being placed in combat roles) by legal means that the speaker deems unethical. (This is reasonably well discussed.)

Right now, the title is the vaguest and most pejorative of those terms, and that is also the emphasis of the article. I would suggest that a more appropriate title would be Draft evasion and resistance (with everything relevant redirecting there). The first paragraph should distinguish the three terms, more or less as I just did.

At a quick read, I think all of the material here belongs, but the article calls for massive expansion: as it stands, the article is terribly U.S.-centric and presentist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets hope someone has time. Kalkin 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for a more neutral title, though "draft dodger" should redirect to the new home, and the term explained. Like it or not, it's part of the political discourse (especially in the US), and an exploration of the term is certainly warranted. Agreed that the article needs more content, especially relevant to parts of the world besides the US. How does Draft avoidance sound? It includes both evasion, resistance, and other quasi-legal means of not getting conscripted, as mentioned in the article. --EngineerScotty 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On the redirect: of course.

"Draft avoidance" (I assume by analogy to "tax avoidance"?) is neutral, but not at all common. I wouldn't object, but I'll admit I like my own suggestion above better. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to use the most common term, draft dodger, even if it is somewhat pejorative. In the Canadian context I would also say that dodger isn't considered in any way negative, it is overwhelmingly the term these people use to self identify themselves. - SimonP 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because the ones who ran off to Canada were evaders/dodgers. But the term is considered insulting by those who chose to stand their ground and risk prison sentences. Most of them believe that by accepting the consequences of their actions, they weren't "dodging" anything. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Draft resistance" should be the main namespace, because it incorporates the activity of "draft evasion" and is the neutral term for the much of the activity referenced by the pejorative "draft dodging" -- even though the insult "draft dodging" may go outside draft resistance to include conscientious objection, which "draft resistance" does not. "Draft dodging" is so perjorative that it (IMHO) violates Wiki's NPOV. Using it as the article name suggests Wiki endorses the denigration of draft resistors. Re using "draft avoidance" (697 Google hits at this moment) -- would that be close to coining a new label for this activity? "Draft resistance" is already in common use (79,400 Google hits at this moment). I think ease of use supports "draft resistance" v. "draft avoidance." Thanks to Jmabel for raising the issue and outlining it so well. -- Lisasmall 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with "draft resistance". Let's give it a couple of days to see if anyone objects. - Jmabel | Talk 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I support leaving it as is, per SimonP. BTW I think the request for a move is premature. Anchoress 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also maintain my objections. Active draft resistance is a very different concept from draft dodging, and the best solution would be to have a separate article on each term. - SimonP 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• IMO, Draft Dodger is the only title that makes sense. Certainly the most commonly used term, and the one most widely recognized, "draft dodger" has entered the vernacular has the legitimate term to describe the action. Certainly if necessary a section can be included in the article discussing alternative names for the practice, but far from being PoV, "Draft Dodger" is the commonly accepted word in this instance. -- pm_shef 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it really matters what legal terms there are for it, Draft Dodger is the most common term, and the only one I've ever heard used. I hear it on the news all the time. I'm talking about all news stations in Canada (Global, CTV, CBC) too. People who came to Canada instead of Vietnam call themselves draft dodgers. There is also a WWII song by Canadians called "We are the D-Day Dodgers", which refered to the 1st Canadaian Arm that was in Italy at the time of D-Day. Dodgers is common, and nobody is arguing about the word "draft". As for using it only in a negative connitation, that is an American POV. Canadians don't consider the term derogitory. It is just a term, like the brain drain, or immagrant. It just means they "immigrated" to Canada to avoid the draft. It's just Americans that go "Oh my God! Draft Dodger! Court-martial and put in jail!" -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you ever bothered listening to the lyrics of ""We are the D-Day Dodgers"? It is a bitter reply to Lady Astor who referred to the soldiers by that expression. It is to some degree a reappropriation of the term, but for the most part it is a protest against having a pejorative applied to them. "Now Lady Astor, get a load of this. / Don't stand up on a platform and talk a load of piss. / You're the nation's sweetheart, the nation's pride / But your bloody big mouth is far too wide." - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you folks saying that this article should stay at this title, and that it should not include draft resistance that is not draft dodging?? If that's the case, we need a different article on draft resistance. - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Draft avoidance. It's neutral but sufficiently broad. Trekphiler 11:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Per discussion above: "draft resistance"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Draft dodger is a well established term. Resister is less specific. I.e., one might oppose the concept of the draft without ever being drafted. But this article is about the dodgers, not other resisters. It's more POV to call them anything else because it would give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably have an altruistic motive for their actions (rather than cowardice). Also, dodger is not a really really negative term, as far as names go. Deet 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition to Deet's comment, it's not really pejoritive, and often self-applied. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Repeating my vote from the previous section. Anchoress 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. This is the most well known term. -Royalguard11^TalkDesk 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bubba ditto 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Draft dodger is the known and used term. That said, if there's enough content for an article on opposition to the draft that doesn't necessarily involve dodging it, go ahead and make that article. The conscription article implies that Antimilitarism would be the current place to put that, though (it has the "main article" header for draft resistance). SnowFire 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. They are basically the same topic. Watersoftheoasis 17:16 29 October 2006

Since you've all repeated your remarks, I'll repeat my question: are you folks then saying that this article should exclude draft resistance that is not draft dodging? If that's the case, we need a different article on draft resistance. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be the best solution. - SimonP 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary since it's dealt with already in the article with "The term draft dodger is sometimes used more loosely, and often inappropriately, to describe those who avoid military service by any number of means..." -  AjaxSmack  05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned but it is not discussed. Draft resistance has at many times in many countries been a significant political phenomenon. A sentence or two by no means covers the matter.

It is one thing that this article with what I feel to be a POV title is to be kept. I won't fight that. It is another thing to say that a large and significant topic either will not be covered, or must be wedged under this disparaging title. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism on the page

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)

Additional countries that attracted US draft dodgers

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) 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

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)

Artless dodger

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)

Complain or contribute? Ymous 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I woule agree with Trekphiler that the article is US centric (and concentrates on the Vietnam era) Draft dodging still takes place today in Poland, Turkey and many other countries. Nevertheless it is an interesting article. What about renaming it "Draft dodging (United States)" and start a new article from an International perspective.80.229.222.48 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Problems

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)

Political examples

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)

Canada

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)

Cumulative Effects of Exemptions on African-Americans?

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)

An addition (quoted below) by an un-named editor has just been removed by Louis Waweru for the entirely correct reason that "The article shouldn't be in a debate with itself". However, the addition cites a statistical source that refutes an un-cited contention in the article ( that "a large proportion of the ground troops in Vietnam were African-Americans"). It seems to me that the correct material should be incorporated in the article, in a way that does not seem like a debate.

"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)

Copyvio

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)

Not 'Conscription Avoidance'

rm

{{globalize/USA}}

because "Draft Dodger" is a US-specific term. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not. See D-Day Dodgers, which claims (accurately) that dodgers is generic English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

[undent]Quit picking hairs, this isn't about semantics, it's about usage. Only a lawyer or an academic would come up with a term like "conscription avoidance" - plain English and most common usage are standard guidelines, whether in Wikipedia or not (and most common usage is the arbiter of stuff like this). Euhemerism, euphemism, eucharism, the word doesn't matter - it's like calling a janitor a "sanitary engineer" or a toilet a "lavitation device". Conscription is also a decidedly British/imperial-English term, and btw I don't think it's quite the same as "the draft"; different selection methods and legalities. In Canada, we call 'em draft dodgers; a term we tend to use even for deserters and others, not just those who fled the draft per se. Ask someone what a draft dodger is or was, they'll know. Ask them if them know what "Conscription avoidance" is and they'll look at you like you've been reading too many dictionaries. And it's not a term for a person; you're suggesting a change from an article about a type of person to what it is that defines them (according to you).Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "splitting hairs". Oops! TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"splitting hairs" + "nitpicking" = "picking hairs". "Creative semantic aphasia" is kinda becoming my thing....Skookum1 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

US Bias

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)

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)

new debate on article name

It has been over two years since the last discussion regarding the name of this article. I am bringing the issue up again for debate. The name of this article needs to be something with less POV than draft dodger. Draft resistance is the least POV choice. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond the same way I did two years ago, as I still think that draft dodger is best name. It is the most common term, and in the Canadian context at least isn't at all pejorative. - SimonP (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But draft dodger does not describe the activity. Draft dodger implies someone is sneaking around, trying to find away to avoid the draft. Muhammad Ali was not dodging the draft. He was quite public about his stance, his action and his act of defiance. Indeed, he was a draft resister. Kingturtle (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So "draft dodger" may not accurately describe the activity of Muhammad Ali specifically, but it certainly describes AN activity, and a common, well understood one. This article is about THAT activity. If you think Ali should not be in the article, that is another matter. We can't pretend there was no draft dodging on the basis that Muhammad Ali did something else. "Draft resister" means something different from "draft dodger", so needs a separate article, not a renaming of this one, which is about what it is about, and not something else. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Kingturtle (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Cases like Ali's don't belong in this article. - SimonP (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• NoMan is mistaken. "Draft dodger" is a term of abuse suitable for two purposes:

1. Talking among people in a particular state, about certain other people:

   about more or less the people whose identity NoMan imagines to be well defined bcz he thinks their defining behavior is "a ... well understood one";
   among those who are pretty much just bullshitting and therefore need to achieve clarity about what they are feeling, but not about what/who it is they're feeling it about, since cognitive dissonance could result from too much clarity.

2. Building social cohesion for the view that even the least hesitation about serving is dishonorable, and usually seeking to intimidate those lacking full enthusiasm for serving.

(I'm not sure which of those purposes led to draft resistance being a Rdr to the accompanying article.)
"Draft dodger" could be suitable to a discussion of such indiscriminate use of the term in public discourse -- just as we have an article Nigger, which is not about black people nor about their characteristics.
Draft resistance is clearly different in theory (and such theory is worthy of discussion in terms of who advocates it) but it's sometimes, perhaps often, impossible to nail down who is practicing it and who is dodging the draft using draft resistance as a pretext. That distinction is not clearly the same as the one, among those illegally avoiding being drafted, between those

1. a) using fraud or b) becoming a fugitive, or
2. either a) going about their normal life on the day ordered to report for their induction, or b) showing up but not moving when ordered to step forward after the oath of induction is read to their group.

It gets muddier still when the logic stated (sincerely or not) is considered. Daniel Seeger said he qualified as a conscientious objector under the law, but his draft board disagreed, arguing his objection was philosophical rather than religious in nature; when he failed to step forward, his case was referred for prosecution, and he was convicted. But his board was wrong: the Supreme Court said he was religious (tho not conventionally so), voided his conviction, and essentially said he was a good guy who persevered in establishing what the freedom of religion of Americans includes. Not only was he in group 2.b above (which meant he got a day in court on the principles, not just on whether he stepped forward or not), while the guys in groups 1.a and 1.b, if they got caught, and 2.a, if the US Attorney's priorities permitted, could only claim at trial that that was someone else's induction order that they ignored, or that their failure to show up was a result of their being kidnapped or insane. And of course, if neither the trial court nor a higher court decides that the draft board misjudged, you can be in group 2.b, and otherwise apparently indistinguishable from Seeger, but it then turns out that -- tho you thot you were helping the law sort itself out -- you fought the law and the law won.
Of course, in each of those four groups, there can be people who don't claim a conscientious objection to all war, based on religious training and belief. Tho i seem to recall that a Jehovah's Witness can plan on warring only at Armageddon, and still be ruled a "C.O.", the rule of thumb is you either meet those criteria, or step forward, or you're a criminal. But there are still worthy distinctions among the criminals. Some will say they were just looking out for themselves, that everyone has a right to look out for themselves, or that everyone has an obligation to look out for themselves, or that they have an obligation or a right or an commitment to look out for their class or race or ethnicity or to the species, or they are deciding on the basis of the nature of the current government or its motivations in the current or the next likely war, or simply that defying the current government at the present time is a good strategy for bringing it down. It would be self-indulgent for me to continue enumerating distinctions.
I'm not saying we can or should do justice to all the real variations (let along the imaginable ones), but "draft dodger" is the bluntest possible instrument, and the discussion should be aimed for now at figuring out what the next sharper tool would be. (I'm far more committed to that much than to the hope that my opinion on the next sharper is correct. But FWIW, the distinction between trying to ignore the draft, and trying to confront it is a major one: Daniel Berrigan, apparently not Philip, said (about trashing draft-board offices) "Don't just do something; stand there." (And explain why you did it, instead of disappearing.)
--Jerzy•t 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At least in the Canadian context you are really quite mistaken. It is a word regularly used by everybody, very much unlike the pejorative you compare it to. A quick media search finds "draft dodger" has appeared thousands of times in Canadian newspapers even over the last few years, and almost always in benign contexts. Other terms like "draft evader" and "war resister" have hardly ever appeared. Here are a few examples of the word being used in recent newspaper articles that show it is a common and non-pejorative term:

• "Between songs, [ Carole James ] reminisced about growing up in a politically active home. Her parents opened it as a safe house for draft dodgers during the Vietnam War and were active in the civil-rights movement." - "James pledges to cut park fees;" Les Leyne. Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: May 2, 2009. pg. B.2
• "By some measures, the Canadian people have been consistently supportive of U.S. draft dodgers and deserters in their midst. Canadians "have not changed," said Lee Zaslofsky, a Vietnam-era deserter and spokesman for the War Resisters Support Campaign, a Toronto group that aids deserters." - "Canada a safe haven no more." Michael Matza. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Mar 22, 2009. pg. E.1
• "Though they both grew up on a Canadian farm, in the tender though not always skilled care of their draft dodger-turned-hairdresser father, Lou, Peachy and Beth have vastly different lives." "A complex tale of sibling rivalry." Robert Wiersema. Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: Feb 22, 2009. pg. B.8
• "Along the way, he met Richard "Cheech" Marin, a Vietnam draft dodger who originally landed in Canada in Bragg Creek, just outside of Calgary." - "Pull out the bong for Chong; Edmonton-born half of stoner duo sings praises of Canadian 'hipness'" Francois Marchand. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Feb 11, 2009. pg. D.1
• "She felt more in her element in Nelson, where they moved two years later, with the artistically inclined residents, including draft dodgers and hippies living in communes. " - "Artistically inclined; Christine Carpenter captured essence of people and places in her illustrious life." Susan Lazaruk. Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: Jan 23, 2009. pg. C.11

- SimonP (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers do not support biased wording

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)

Under World War I: "However, because Canada has always had a brain drain with respect to the US since 1830—sorting out those avoiding conscription from the ongoing stream of economic or social migrants is difficult." This can't be right. 76.102.141.16 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Telling the truth is avoidance?

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)

African American military figures in Vietnam War

The-Expose-inator (talk · contribs) 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 The-Expose-inator (talk · contribs) insists on adding this, then I will bring a third opinion. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that The-Expose-inator added his opinion on the matter on my talk page [1]. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( The-Expose-inator (talk · contribs) regarding addition of information that seems to be unrelated to article subject, contains wp:SYN and questionable sourcing. There are a few noticeboards that this possibly could go (3rr/OR), but I rather start here. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)):

First let me say that the statement left on the 3O project page is not written in a neutral way, with editor names being used in the summary. That being said, although there is difference of opinion as to the quality of the reference, it is cited. On this part the reference should be taken to WP:RSN to see what that community thinks of the quality of the source. The content in question, IMHO, belongs more on an article about causalities during the Vietnam/Second-Indochina Conflict/War, rather than in this article. If it is to be kept in this article it should be summarized and rewritten in a way that makes it relevant to African American draft dodging.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

General Comment About the Entire Article

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)

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)

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)

Amex

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the "Avoidance [etc.]" section, January 2018

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)

Why I reverted Clupo1's latest additions

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)

Demographics of draftees

This revert caught my eye. Perhaps these sources might fit:

• Fry, Joseph A. (2015). The American South and the Vietnam War: Belligerence, Protest, and Agony in Dixie. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 154, 179. ISBN 978-0-8131-6109-9.
• Binkin, Martin (2011). Blacks and the Military. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 33, 35–36. ISBN 978-0-8157-0566-6.
• Rodriguez, Marc S. (2004). Repositioning North American Migration History: New Directions in Modern Continental Migration, Citizenship, and Community. University Rochester Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-1-58046-158-0.
• Westheider, James E. (2008). The African American Experience in Vietnam: Brothers in Arms. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-7425-4532-8.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Move Vietnam War info to the page Draft Evasion in the Vietnam War

The page Draft Evasion in the Vietnam War exists, and much of the info here is already over there. We should minimize the wealth of info present here because it is worthy of its own page and clutters this one.Mangokeylime (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mangokeylime, - I strongly disagree that the United States / Vietnam War subsection of this article should be stripped from it.

First, a little background for new readers. On December 18, 2019, you created the article Draft evasion in the Vietnam War, in large part by moving material from the US / Vietnam War subsection of this article to your new article. On December 22, I restored the content you removed from this article, without removing any content from your article – meanwhile pointing out that Wikipedia contributors are free to copy and rework material from one article to another. Thus you were not required to strip material from this article in order to use it elsewhere, and in fact your article is still intact.

Nevertheless, you still want to cut the US / Vietnam War subsection from this article. You offer two reasons.

First, you say we should "minimize the wealth of info" on Wikipedia. I disagree. So long as material is presented in different forms and contexts, it can add to Wikipedia's use-value.

Second, you say the US / Vietnam War subsection now "clutters this [article]" because the material in it is now available (albeit differently arranged and in an arguably more anti-war context) in your new article. Again, I disagree. The US / Vietnam War subsection is essential to this article. Most of the draft evasion practices cited in the first section of this article refer to the US / Vietnam War experience. Similarly, most of the scholars and journalists cited in the last section, "Deeper issues," are referring to the US / Vietnam War experience. Thus, rather trhan being excess, or "clutter", as you put it, the US / Vietnam War subsection is an integral part of this article, inseparable from its concerns, schiolarship, and content. Best,- Babel41 (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Why I reverted Volunteer Marrek

Dear Volunteer Marek, - You failed to give any explanation for reverting my 4 July 2020 reversion of the recent edits to the Donald Trump and Joe Biden paragraphs. I stated I was reverting because of "needless rhetoric, a falsely-sourced claim, and vandalism." Let me explain further.

The vandalism I spoke of is obvious – there was no expressed reason to eliminate the relevant and carefully sourced material on Biden, a citation was left dangling at the bottom of the Biden paragraph, and a red cite-error was created in the References. The NYTimes article does not refer to Trump's father's friend getting him out of the draft - you can't just insert unsourced claims into the middle of sourced material. And we do not need to be told that many Americans piled on Trump. That violates WP:NPOV, none of the politicians and celebrities mentioned in the Arguably Manipulating the System section escaped people's ire. That is why they are there.

I invite other editors to respond here, as well as Volunteer Marek. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Biden stuff, Washington Times is not a reliable source for this material, and who cares if Biden didn’t mention asthma in his memoir? That’s a transparent attempt at POV. It’s also an obvious false equivocation.

Regarding the a Trump stuff, the NYT article does indeed refer to Trump’s father although it may be a bit unclear as there are two NYT sources there. Volunteer Marek 07:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Volunteer Marek.

The "Prominent people arguably manipulating the system" sub-section is about which politicians and celebrities have been accused of manipulating themselves out of the draft by their political opponents. It is not about what most Americans have concluded about theur behavior.

Therefore, the Washington Times material about Biden merits inclusion here. The Washington Times is an explicitly conservative newspaper. It is also WP-notable and often cited by conservatives. Moreover, if you go back to the Draft evasion article as it existed on 29 June, before the current round of edits and reversions started, you will see that the article in the Washington Times is by and from the Associated Press, a major American news organization. Removing the succinct, relevant, and properly sourced Biden paragraph from this sub-section is therefore POV and must be reversed.

Regarding the Trump material, the reason the sources are unclear is that the paragraph has been torn apart several times by you and other since June 29. If you go back to June 29 and the two New York Times articles cited there, you will see that the first – by Steve Eder and his colleagues – does NOT mention the doctor being Trump's father's friend. That is why we cannot cite it as you and / or others have done there. The allegation is actually contained in the second Eder NYTimes article, the one he wrote alone. The allegation must therefore be cited to it, and it needs to be sourced properly, not jammed into the body of the text.

Finally, as I said above, this sub-section is NOT about the American people's rage at these characters. It is about who has been accused of draft dodging by political opponents. That is why the line that has recently been inserted about Trump, that he is "recognized as a draft dodger by a large portion of the United States, and the military community," is inappropriate here. It goes beyond the scope of this sub-section; moreover, the same could be said about Clinton, Cheney, Bush, etc. The sentence that existed on June 29, "Due to this deferment he was accused of draft dodging by political opponents," is sufficient to make the point that this sub-section is about. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Prominent people arguably manipulating the system

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)

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)

Citation of "1001 Ways to Beat the Draft"

The inclusion of 1001 Ways to beat the draft (which is a satirical poem) as evidence should be removed. Since it's satirical.