Talk:Veteran

== Public attitude towards veterans ==1223 follo me daylen This statement is patently false: "In some countries with strong anti-military traditions (e.g., Germany after 1945) veterans are neither honored in any special way by the general public, nor have their dedicated Veterans Day, although events are sometimes orchestrated by Neo-Nazi and other minority right-wing groups". German banned ANY acknowledgement or celebration of the ideology of Nazism post WWII. To state that "(e.g. Germany after 1945...have dedicated Veterans Day...sometimes orchestrated by Neo-Nazi [groups] is simply not correct, and indeed would be a violation of current German law. This sentence should/will be rewritten or removed.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Veterans

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

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

This entry should include passages from Abraham Lincoln who said:

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

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

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

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

Just thought someone should know about that...

Tony Barzola

Changes in format

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

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

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

US-specific

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

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

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

Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers

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

Letter Missing from Sometimes

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

PTSD dishonorable discharge addition

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

(Kevinjamesjeffers (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC))== Citations ==

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

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

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

Suicide

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

opening line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pending changes

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

The following request appears on that page:

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

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title of section, needs to be changed?

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

Wouldn't a more appropriate title be,

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

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

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

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

POV? Improvement needed?

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

• The above quote, might be non-encyclopedic.

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

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

Wikification/ removal of text needed?

The following text needs to be removed,

"Further information: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links that might be appropriate in a potential article

• (Norwegian text)

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

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

Edit request on 30 May 2012

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

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

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

Edit request on 5 March 2013

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

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

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

Worldwide View

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