Talk:Moral waiver

I created this stub on a subject that has increased importance as it impacts the quality of the US Military in Iraq during the Surge of 2007. I will posit that this statement, "increased moral waivers is tantamount to lowered standards for recruitment to the military" is consistent with NPOV since this is accepted by a wide spectrum of authorities. I have suggested topics that require content. I did a search of the Department of Defense and Army web sites to present their interpretation of this term, but could not find a concise description. There are several official papers describing requirements and when they can be waived but they are not presented as a single subject, and would require some work to make coherent.

The objections to these lowered standards have been written about in the major mainstream media, such as Time Magazine, New York Times and Washington Post. I have include one whose legitimacy was enhanced by being written by a previous high ranking Navy officia in the section of effect on Iraq War. While this is a politically charged subject, I will dutifully attempt to adhere to NPOV, Neutral Point of View, in order to protect the legitimacy of this article and Wikipedia.

As of now this article is linked to Iraq War under this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Early_2007:_Bush.27s_.22new_way_forward.22_confronts_Iran

It is also linked to Multinational force in Iraq. Arodb 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I hasten to mention that i have not checked which assertions were added by the preceding colleague, but the revision i edited from cited the NYT ref and lifted part or all of one of its quotes, and ignored completely the fact in that NYT article that even if it's "accepted by a wide spectrum of authorities", it's rejected by Aaron Belkin from UC Santa Barbara. If it's only rejected by cranks, provide verification of that in the article, don't just assert it w/o evidence on this talk page.
  The lks from other articles are relevant only bcz the demonstrate the priority that cleaning up this article deserves.
  In particular (again, i don't know that this first discussant was responsible, but) unless some bizarre shit came down partway thru this article's editing history, the inclusion of info on increase of the length and/or proportion of time spent deployed is such a lousy judgment of what is relevant to the accompanying article as to serve as evidence of either PoV intent in its editing, or inability of some editor to understand what NPoV means.
  --Jerzy•t 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  

POV problems

This article needs to be rewritten according to the WP:NPOV style guidelines. -- 80.168.225.33 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to adhere to NPOV. Feel free to try to do better.Arodb 06:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What he means is that you didnt adhere to his POV so therefore its not NPOV...

213.141.89.53 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the moral waivers?

The article, as well as the parent article on the Iraq War states that exclusions of volunteers with a history of criminal acts were relaxed. However, there is no citation on either article to support this claim. out the effect of extended tours and another that states that the military must 'be careful'. The lack of citations regarding the subject of moral waivers itself the fact is why the article does not adhere to NPOV. They way it is written now suggest that the military is hiring lifetime criminals. I suggest adding the following:

"Moral waivers are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct; two to four misdemeanors such as larceny, trespassing, or vandalism; a single felony such as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana possession. Applicants with more than one felony, or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking, are not eligible. Additionally, as part of the waiver process, the military looks at the recent history such as employment, schooling, references, and signs of remorse and changed behavior since the incident occurred."  :http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/more_entering_army_with_criminal_records/

After reviewing the regulations and actual (as opposed to implied effects, as the article uses) there seems to be no true significant impact, or at least no evidence of an impact, there are only suppositions, not facts. This also begins to question the true motivations as why the article was written. Angncon (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Before reading this talk pg, i removed the assertion of lowered stds, since the Times article quotes the HASC chair on that (he providing no source) but does not assert it itself. (In contrast to my immediately preceding colleague, i'm inclined to believe him, bcz he's a D & my impression is that in the 2000s it takes an R to issue baldfaced lies abt the relevant facts while entrusted with the public good, but that's just my opinion; there is not the evidence that NPoV requires.)
  I don't know how to square my details on the Regs (i provided my citation in the article) with the apparently different acct attr'd to the ref cited above in this section. But i'll be surprised if boston.com deserves the deference i would give to -- what i momentarily thot was asserted -- The Boston Globe.
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moral waiver. 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/20070827082643/http://lynnekcote.com/author.htm to http://www.lynnekcote.com/author.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)