Talk:Veteran

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)

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)

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)