Talk:Conscientious objector/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Limited definition

Considering conscientious objection only a matter of military issues is a very restricted definition of the concept. Especially in the last century, other forms of objection of conscience appeared, like the objection to peform abortions, euthanasia, death penalties, animal sacrifices, (and other moral issues that don't involve death) etc., and these are not just analogies respect the military objection like someone has argued, most of these are legally recognized by a lot of countries. I checked the articles in other languages and most of them talk about the conscientious objection in other fields apart from the military, it seems the English article is an exception. The French article even talks about the right to disobey the laws that are considered morally unfair and unacceptable based on the 'natural right to resist oppression' recognized in the 'Declaration of the Rights and of the Man' of 1789, and it isn't restricted to military issues. I think this article should be about conscientious objection in general, and then other articles about conscientious objection in specific fields could be made.--37.133.216.10 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for the long response, I got pretty carried away!) I have a few opinions on this... I'll preface this with the disclaimer that I wrote Conscientious objection in the United States (except for the history section), so I have some irrational emotional attachment to the status quo. :) I can't speak for the non-English translations, but this article's categorization and related articles are quite deeply rooted in conscientious objection in regards to military service. For example, just look at the references sections for this article and for the US-specific article. Of course, the difficulty should ideally not be a factor in this decision if the cause is great enough. I understand where you're coming from in that "conscientious objection" can (and is) used to refer to other fields, specifically medicine. For example, the Google Scholar results for "conscientious objection" refers largely to medicine. There are some obvious biases given the scholarly nature of medicine, and we should also note that these articles always specify that they are referring to the field of medicine because (I would argue) the implicit/assumed meaning defaults to objection to military service. I would also like to point out that simply changing the search query to "conscientious objector" returns results for objections to military service. My personal analysis of this is that whenever a person identifies themselves as a "conscientious objector", they mean that they object to military service. Medical professionals, to my understanding, identify first-and-foremost as medical professionals, and rarely as "conscientious objectors". In other words, the phrase "conscientious objector" always refers to military service, whereas the phrase "conscientious objection" can, if (and arguably only if) specified, also refer to medicine. Given all of this, I do not support changing this article to generally refer to objection to an action on the basis of conscience, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to create an article about conscientious objection to medical practices (or something else, perhaps more broad) and then to give a "see also" notice referring to that article from here. Really, if someone has the time and desire to create such a page, I'd support a disambiguation page and possibly a move/refactor of this article from Conscientious objector to Conscientious objection to military service. Likewise, the country-specific articles should in that case be similarly treated. But again, I do not support diluting the contents of this article to be more broad, if that is what you mean. I think this topic is far too large to justify being more vague, and if we move in any direction, that direction must be categorization, not consolidation. Gmarmstrong (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Dubious Claim (William Coltman)

The claim of William Coltman's having been a conscientious objector is not present on his own wiki page, and was marked as "dubious" for the first source, the Telegraph, whilst the Oxford Database of Biography is behind a paywall.

I've done some very preliminary looking, and although the claim that Coltman was a conscientious objector is cited frequently on many personal blogs, there is only one other place I have found with any clout that has repeated it, that being this BBC article. The claim the BBC makes is word-for-word the same as that made in this wiki page.

As the BBC has repeated it, I think it is reasonable enough to include, but it still feels rather dubious to me.

98.102.79.214 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A quote from Selfless Service, David T. Zabecki Military History. 35.3 (Sept. 2018): p16. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history :

"British army Lance Corporal William Harold Coltman received his nation's highest award for combat valor while serving on the Western Front in 1918. Like U.S. Army Corporal Desmond Doss in the next world war, Coltman was a pacifist who refused to bear arms and instead served as a combat medic. Yet neither backed down under fire. Doss received the Medal of Honor; Coltman the Victoria Cross."

Zabecki, D. (2018). Selfless Service. Military History, 35(3), 16.

SandJ-on-WP (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added this source to the page and found weblink. It seems reputable. As I am not a regular user I will not personally remove the "dubious" or "better source" tags as I don't really know the standards for doing so, but I think this may resolve the question. Left to someone else's discretion.98.102.79.214 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. The only source that says conscientious objector is the BBC one. The others and his ONDB entry all describe him a religious man who was a pacifist - an entirely different thing altogether. Coltman was a volunteer into the army in the early days of the war, way before conscription was introduced and while he may have said to the army "I don't want to shoot anyone", there is no evidence that he ever refused to perform military service. Indeed his ONDB entry mentions that he wasn't adverse to bringing in discarded weapons as well as casualties. Nthep (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To quote his grandson John "He was not a conscientious objector - he was very much against that. He volunteered to go in and it was very hard to be on the front line as a volunteer." (Burton Daily Mail 5 November 2018 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/william-coltman-burton-victoria-cross-2126973 ) Nedrutland (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Social notions dwell inside the brain of people, or when read they can enter; sometimes people approach an idea by themselves (friends and family might play or not a role).

Social notions inside the brains of people exert pressure and are the reason tyrants exist.

We should enrich sociologically the main text (moderately, because many sociologists are blabbermouths, they force their kindness into others in a way others don't understand and that may lead to wars. Some sociologists are politically active. It might work bad or well so we shouldn't tint politically our texts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411E:5600:D149:92CE:F8BA:657 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a term for non military objection on the same grounds?

Hi

Is there a term for objection on moral/religious grounds to taking part in something for non military people e.g Google employees refusing to work on projects that would help US Immigration. If there is and there is an article for it can I suggest a link is added somewhere?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Conscientious objector → Conscientious objection – Article is not about individuals who choose to object but about the action and right of conscientious objection. This is also the slightly more common name according to Google Scholar results: [1] [2] The proposed name is more consistent with other articles, i.e. civil disobedience, not civil disobeyer, desertion, not deserter, conscription, not conscript. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

no. Conscientious objector is a specific thing — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference? Conscientious objection is what a conscientious objector does, a conscientious objector is someone who has a conscientious objection. I do not propose changing the scope of the article, which is restricted to the military. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that conscientious objection can be about blood transfusion, vaccines, abortion or emergency contraception, whereas a conscientious objector is specifically someone objecting to military service or being forced to support military activity. Various dictionary definitions I can find all support this difference.

A conscientious objector does not 'do' conscientious objection. Conscientious objection is not a specific set of activities, it is a feeling. Being a conscientious objector means carrying out actions in response to being made to do something; those actions are reactions and vary according to circumstance. There is no text book or guide on how to do conscientious objection. Instead, the conscientious objector is defined by their reaction, their refusal to conform and their possible public stance or explanation to support their reaction. You cannot do conscientious objection without there being someone in power trying to impose their will upon you. Hence the description of a conscientious objector is not covered by a description of conscientious objection; the former is a personal experience, the latter a moral philosophy.

A long and tedious Google search just now shows me that in common use the term 'conscientious objector' is only about military conscientious objection (except for a weapon in a computer game and a quest in a another computer game) whereas 'conscientious objection' is very often about religious objection to medical practices. The term 'conscientious objector' seems to be well understood as a person with strong views on military participation and who can expect social and legal consequences for following their views. There are poems, books and films about such people with the term in the title. There are no cohorts of medical or other conscientious objectors and seemingly no genre of art and literature describing them. So, a 'conscientious objector' is a thing that warrants entry in a dictionary and an encyclopaedia. If it warrants entry, then that is its title.

What has Wikipedia to say about article titles? It must be about the content; this article's content is about conscientious objectors, rather than conscientious objection. It needs to be a term people are familiar with, 'conscientious objector' is a well known term for people objecting to military activity. It needs to be a term one would search for; that seems likely. It needs sufficient precision to separate it from other subjects; 'conscientious objector' does this whereas 'conscientious objection' does not. It must be no longer than necessary; is conforms to that rule. As for the consistency rule, the articles given as examples are not quite similar. People who conduct civil disobedience or desert are not a coherent group in the way conscientious objectors are. Conscription is a societal process for tagging people and can result in military, social, environmental or administrative activity; being a conscientious objector is an individual decision with serious and otherwise avoidable personal consequences. The article's need not be consistent with those other articles which may seem related subjects but are a different class of entity.

'Conscientious objector' is a commonly recognised name for such people; it is neutral; it is non-judgemental; it is sufficiently precise; it is not ambiguous; it is concise. I do not think this article's title should be changed. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

However, I can see how there does need to be a page for 'conscientious objection' that covers medical, military, religious, philosophical and social conscientious objection to a wide variety of subjects such as objecting to abortion, vaccinations, contraception, forced displacement of people, workforce outsourcing, workforce abuse, discrimination, environmental damage, ultra-capitalism, the death penalty and so on. That article is missing - is that the real problem here? SandJ-on-WP (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also no. I thought about this proposal when it was raised and have reflected on it and the content of the article. The more I think about it, the more I think it should not be changed. It begins by talking about conscientious objectors and goes on to talk about their experiences now and in the past in different environments. It is not about conscientious objection, it is mostly about conscientious objectors, their experiences and how they are treated. I think this change would be a change partly for the sake of it. If it is carried out, the article will need some editing to stop it being about the experiences of conscientious objectors and more about conscientious objection. Conscientious objection includes military service, anti-abortion, professionalism and ethics in all manner of fields. But it is military service conscientious objection that results in individual conscientious objectors being treated very differently from the rest of society. So this would create a need for another article about military conscientious objectors, which is essentially what we have here now. This change adds no value. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is article is about a specific status of a person viz. military service, and often with a precise meaning in law. A person can have conscientious objections to a war, but not be considered a "conscientious objector" by status. People can also have conscientious objections to many things, e.g. jury service, paying taxes, swearing oaths, etc. not touched upon here, and bestowing no particular status. Walrasiad (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom, this is consistent with our general practice of preferring titles that describe an action, rather than the people who perform that action. It would also be consistent with the naming of most of our related articles (e.g. Conscientious objection in East Germany, Conscientious objection in South Korea, Conscientious objection in the United States, Selective conscientious objection - the only counterexample I see is Conscientious objectors in Wales). If ambiguity with other forms of conscientious objection is a major concern, then perhaps the article could be moved to Conscientious objection to military service. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I was expecting "conscientious objector" to show up more often on the Google Ngrams viewer than "conscientious objection", but I was surprised to find that "conscientious objection" appears to be more frequently used.[3] Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  However, when you expand the period for the analysis to be wider, the result shows the opposite, that conscientious objector is far more frequently used: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conscientious+objector%2Cconscientious+objection&year_start=1900&year_end=2023&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cconscientious%20objector%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cconscientious%20objection%3B%2Cc0 SandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Interestingly, Google Trends shows a HUGELY greater interest interest in the search term 'conscientious objector' than 'conscientious objection': https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=conscientious%20objector,conscientious%20objection SandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think the increase in searches and written statements about 'conscientious objection' may be to do with the increase in fear of vaccination. That most recent comparison I did above shows 'conscientious objection form' is the most common 'conscientious objection' search type in that period, which is not about military service but medical intervention exemptions. A search for 'conscientious objection form' shows most results are indeed about vaccination objection. But anti-vaxxers and not called 'conscientious objectors', they are called 'anti-vaxxers'. So removing an article entitled 'conscientious objector' which is about people objecting to military service and moving it to 'conscientious objection' which is currently about the anti-vaccination movement (potentially not very long-lived whereas military conscientious objectors have been a thing in many societies for over a century), is not appropriate. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=conscientious+objection+form&df=2000-01-01..2020-01-01&ia=web SandJ-on-WP (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a specific and singular subject. The proposed target is a different, wider, subject as proposed by OP. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.