Talk:Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy/archive1

The article says:

''Although an all-volunteer force, troops who enlist in the United States military have an minimum eight-year obligation to serve, regardless of the length of the active-duty term the enlistee chooses. As a result, many soldiers and officers who served less than eight years on active duty are now being recalled.''

Where is this information from? There is more to it that that. It is affecting people who have served their 8 year obligation. 60 Minutes did a piece on this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/60minutes/main658994.shtml ''Like many Army officers, Mary signed up for eight years -- four years active duty, and four years in the Ready Reserves. She received her discharge certificate in 1998, but she was called up this past June to serve as a transportation officer...What Mary didn’t realize is that, as an officer, she remained in the Ready Reserve -- even after her eight years were through -- because she hadn’t resigned her commission as an officer.''

TalkHard 01:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a reference that details the terms of service. As to the points you make above it seems the military is taking advantage of a loophole that says Officers need to resign to be effectively out. I read that during my research somewhere, but it seems many officers weren't aware of it. So, they are still technically part of the military, and are effectively screwed now, by not having resigned when they quit. Maybe another article here... jkrusky 06:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like the 60 minutes thing does not have to do with the stop-loss lawsuit. But I looked into the issue more and there are still problems with the article. I detail them below. - TalkHard 11:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

article denoted as reviewed
Since there were no apparent objections, I designated this article as reviewed and posted it to Latest News. I was really impressed with the development of this article and the contributions of everyone that participated. jkrusky 10:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Except that I don't think my previous objection was addressed adequately and was in the middle of writing more info about the problem when the article was published. I looked into more and believe there are still problems with the article. Most notably, the paragraph describing the stop-loss is misinformed. From what I found out, it seems that stop-loss has nothing to do with recalling soldiers who haven't served their 8 years (while this may be happening, it is not what stop-loss or the lawsuit is about). It has to do with keeping soldiers who are already there for longer than they signed up for. This NY Times article does the best job explaining it. Another more minor problem I also see is the part that says, "Stop-loss orders were first issued during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and have been widely issued since September 11, 2001," but the article referenced says nothing about stop-loss being used after 9/11. It may be true, but I think a correct reference is needed.


 * I'm not sure what to do at this point since the article is published. I don't think it's good form to remove a published article. Perhaps corrections should be added to the bottom? In the meantime, should we put up a note that the contents are disputed? - TalkHard 11:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't mean to jump the gun. Your previous objection seemed to relate to a separate issue. I understand what you are saying. I corrected the one reference that refers to stop-loss orders after 9/11. Plus, I added another that should address your concern about recalling soldiers who haven't served their eight years. I quote an article from the Chicago Tribune (added to References for the article).


 * The Pentagon issued its latest stop-loss order in June, forcing thousands of men and women to stay in the military and requiring many to return to combat duty well beyond their agreed-upon period of active service.

I am in the process of putting the article back into peer review so your concerns can be adequately addressed, if they have not been so already. jkrusky 11:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there's still a problem with the paragraph describing stop-loss, and that it needs to be completely reworked. It gives the idea that stop loss has to do with recalling people who haven't served their full 8 years. It says, "Troops who enlist in the all-volunteer United States military have an minimum eight-year obligation to serve, regardless of the length of the active duty term enlistees choose [3]. As a result, many soldiers and officers who served less than eight years on active duty are now being recalled[4]." But link 3 has nothing to do with stop-loss, and link 4 has to do with someone who has served more than 8 years. Stop loss has to has to do with keeping soldiers for longer than they signed up for, even those that served longer than 8 years. I'll try to rework the paragraph to a better description of what stop-loss is. - TalkHard 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, how does it look? I removed almost all of the offending paragraph, and added a little info about stop-loss elsewhere. Everything looks fine to me now. - TalkHard 13:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I frankly think it has been watered down and is less compelling. By removing and modifying the "offending" paragraph you have removed valuable, accurate information. I had referenced another source that also claims that the stop-loss orders refer to persons not on active duty, but still within the contracted time period, also called the Ready Reserve. Perhaps George Bush will convince you that that the information contained in the paragraph is accurate.


 * Sec. 1. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, the authority under title 10, United States Code, to order any unit, and any member of the Ready Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary concerned,


 * Sec. 5. The Secretary of Transportation is hereby designated and empowered, without the approval, ratification, or other action by the President, to exercise the authority vested in sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code, when the Coast Guard is not serving as part of the Navy, as invoked by section 2 of this order, to recall any regular officer or enlisted member on the retired list to active duty and to detain any enlisted member beyond the term of his or her enlistment.


 * As to your claim that link 3 has nothing to do with stop-loss in this verion of the article, it's not surprising as the reference is in support of the details on military enlistment terms, and was added there to satisfy one of your earlier concerns. Regarding your concern about link 4 addressing someone that served more than eight years, that is partially correct. However, if you read the entire article you would have come across this:


 * The latest stop-loss order was bolstered by a separate decision to recall 5,600 members of the 111,000-strong Individual Ready Reserve, soldiers who, like Exum, have completed their specified period of active duty but remain on reserve status until their contractual commitment is completed.


 * Which is just one of numerous similar references that can be found if you spend three minutes on Google.


 * So, as fun as this review process is, it does get a little tedious refuting claims of inaccuracy arising from baseless supposition. I intend to roll-back your changes to the article as you have not provided any meaningful objections. And, since four other editors have contributed to the article without voicing any objections, I will re-tag this article as reviewed and consider the matter closed.


 * You can post further objections here, but I will allow someone else to take their turn responding to them. jkrusky 18:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Did you read a word I wrote? I wasn't doubting the factual accuracy of the lines. Just the fact that they have nothing to do with stop-loss or the lawsuit. The quote you provide proves this: "The latest stop-loss order was bolstered by a separate decision to recall 5,600 members of the 111,000-strong Individual Ready Reserve". But you decide to remove info describing what stop-loss is to replace it with info that has nothing to do with what this lawsuit is about? If you wanted to include the info you should have made it clear that it is a separate issue not related to this lawsuit.

BTW, agree that resolving disputes is tedious. I did not want to spend hours last night dealing with someone else's sloppiness. But it would go a little smoother if you bothered to read the objection in the first place. Better yet, if you're doing an article on stop-loss, you might want to actually figure out what it is. - TalkHard 23:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added text on the top noting there is a dispute until this is resolved. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal. But I have a problem with an article on stop-loss confusing what it actually is. We're here to inform people, not confuse them. - TalkHard 00:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also I reverted 119's changes, since they were made after publication, and made no note that changes were made to the article. - TalkHard 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Publication" hardly exists right now and the policy is optional. Reverting. 119 01:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into an edit war, so I'm asking you to change it back. I find it completely unprofessional to quietly change the contents of an article after it is published. And yes, putting the reviewed tag on the article and sticking it on the front page equates to publishing it. It also states on the reviewed template to, "clearly denote any updates you make at the bottom." You do not do this. Furthermore, I do not feel your changes do much to clarify the article, as there is still info about stop-loss and the Ready Reserve program intermingled with one another. - TalkHard 01:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You removed information that explains the relevance of the IRR to stop-loss but added a paragraph on '60s IRR members being recalled? How is that information relevant or your policy consistent? The information I added was factual and explains why these soldiers who are suing have been recalled and their tours of duty extended. I invite others to see  the diff. 119 05:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There is nothing I see that explains the relevance of the IRR to stop-loss. They are two separate policies. I'm reverting back. As it is now, there is no clear description of what stop-loss is, and it sounds like IRR has something to do with stop-loss. If you want to add info about the IRR, it should probably be added at the end of the article, or in some way that makes it clear the the IRR has nothing to do with the lawsuit. - TalkHard 05:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Besides your stubborn assertion that 119 and I are wrong- despite the numerous references we have provided that are contrary to your opinion, what information can you point to that supports your position that IRR call-ups are not covered under the Stop-Loss program, and not part of the lawsuit? jkrusky 06:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe I thoroughly demonstrate these things in my comments below. - TalkHard 09:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So anyway, I would like to put back the changes I made. The info about recalling soldiers should be added to the end of the article, as it is unrelated to the lawsuit. Can we agree on this? - TalkHard 01:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Publishing an article with misleading info, then putting in back into review, then publishing it again while ignoring objections is not Wikinews at its finest. The matter is not closed. If you don't provide feedback I will make the changes without your input. - TalkHard 01:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Umm, why are you writing this crap on my User page? That's what the article's Talk Page is for. At a minimum, send me a message.


 * You offer nothing but vague, unsupported assertions that somehow stop-loss doesn't apply to the IRR, and that IRR call-up and stop-loss are two separate programs. Thus, we are doing a disservice to our readers by misleading them. You have not offered any proof, and yet we are all supposed to defer to your judgement? As I said before, three minutes on Google could clear up your confusion. All the previous references I sent you on how stop-loss affects the IRR have not sunk in, so here's another one:
 * 3. RESERVE STOP LOSS APPLICABILITY.  STOP LOSS IS APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE READY ESERVE (SMCR, IMA, IRR, AND AR) AND THOSE MEMBERS OF THE RETIRED RESERVE INVOLUNTARILY RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY. MARINES IN THESE CATEGORIES ARE SUBJECT TO STOP LOSS UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY THIS MARADMIN OR THE FIRST GENERAL OFFICER IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND


 * Pardon the all-caps, but apparently that's how Marine's like to write.


 * If you want to add more information to the article on stop-loss, go right ahead. Just don't write from an uninformed point of view. And kindly stop badgering me. Especially as I didn't even write the paragraph in contention, but began by just mentioning stop-loss relating to those on active duty. jkrusky 02:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are still not reading what I write. You say: "You offer nothing but vague, unsupported assertions that somehow stop-loss doesn't apply to the IRR." No I did not say this. Then you say: "and that IRR call-up and stop-loss are two separate programs." Yes, this is what I am saying. And again, from your own quote: "The latest stop-loss order was bolstered by a separate decision to recall 5,600 members of the 111,000-strong Individual Ready Reserve." Do you understand that there are two separate things that are going on. There is the stop-loss, which keeps people who are serving longer than their enlistment date, then there is the IRR call up, which is not the same thing. The lawsuit is about the stop-loss, not the IRR call up. - TalkHard 03:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back to the changes I made last night, and added a line at the end about the IRR recall. If you would like to add additional info, you may do so, but if you just revert, then so will I. If the changes I made look okay, then say so so the tag on top can be removed. - TalkHard 04:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I like 119's version better, as it is more informative.


 * I continue to contend that the assertions made in the Correction is inaccurate. The information in this article, (as listed in the References) explicity claims that IRR call-ups and extensions of active-duty terms are two seperate processes under the Stop-Loss program.


 * "The Bush administration contends that Executive Order 13223 of September 14, 2001, gives it the authority to implement what is known as the "Stop Loss" program."


 * The lawsuit charges that the Stop Loss program is invalid because it is "unrelated to and exceeds the scope and purpose of the executive order under which the Stop Loss order has been promulgated.


 * "Executive Order 13223 states that the Secretary of Defense can order the Ready Reserve of the armed forces to active duty if necessary"

And, as the article states, it IS part of the lawsuit. jkrusky 05:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Except that's a different lawsuit. Also the article does not say the IRR call ups have anything to do with stop-loss. The reality is that "Executive Order 13223" contains provisions for both stop-loss and IRR call-up. You even quote the relevant sections from this order. Section 1 is about IRR call-up, Section 5 is about stop-loss. And from another link provided in the article: "WHAT IS STOP LOSS? Stop Loss is a short-term policy that stabilizes Marines in their current assignment by preventing them from leaving the Corps at the end of their service."  That is what stop loss is. Where does it say anything about IRR call up being part of stop-loss? I mean, do you understand why it's called stop-loss? It's evident from the name stop-loss that it has to do with stopping the loss of soldiers, not adding new ones.


 * Finally the line added now by 119 contains further misinformation. It implies that John Doe 7 is suing because he was recalled in the IRR call up. But he's not even in the Reserves. From the actual text of the lawsuit: "Plaintiff John Doe 7 is a member of the Army National Guard with an ETS (Expiration of Term of Service) date in April 2005. However, he has been ordered to active duty and informed that he should expect that duty to last up to a year and a half." (p. 3) First of all, he's not even in the reserves. Second, he's suing because he was told he will have to stay past April 2005.


 * Look at the text of the lawsuit for the others as well. None of them are suing because of the IRR call up. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of them are even in the Reserves. I'm reverting, and adding a link to the text of the lawsuit (which I should have been there a long time ago). - TalkHard 08:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh great. Even more problems with the article. It confuses the two lawsuits as well. The part starting with "Joshua Sondheimer, an attorney..." and the quote regarding Executive Order 13223 is all about a different lawsuit. It looks like it will all have to be removed. Agreed? - TalkHard 08:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

is it in dispute, or factualy acurate?
Shurly it cant be both "in dispute" AND a "Reviewed article"??? One or the other, please.


 * It can if was poorly reviewed. - TalkHard

I am removing the disputed tag. It appears to no longer be disputed. - Amgine 21:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed a couple paragraphs that confused this lawsuit with another one. I suppose it's okay now. Also removed the "Corrections" part since that's not a part of policy anymore. - TalkHard 01:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi - old news article
I want to avoid a revert war.

I understand and have read the discussion on the talk pages of the article. The article, as a news document, is historical. By editing this article you are attempting to re-write the consensus (and lack of consensus) of the time of its publishing. This appears to me to be very POV, and harmful to Wikinews as a reference. Please revert the article, and replace the disputed tag if you do not agree with the contents as they stood at that time. - Amgine 03:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs I removed confuse the lawsuit talked about in the article with a different lawsuit. This is not my opinion, it is a fact, and easily verifiable by following article linked within them. It was also never disputed. None of the discussion on the talk page discusses this error (except my one comment at the end) because by the time I had discovered this error I think we all gave up on the article. That is why it was never fixed. Normally I would agree that it's bad form to rewrite an article after its "published", but it's even worse form to have an article with factually incorrect info. If you want a note at the end detailing the changes made, that's fine, but frankly I don't see the point since there is no policy in place any more and everyone else modifies articles after they are published also. - TalkHard 08:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will revert to the previous condition and add to express your disagreement with the material as expressed by the articule when posted. - Amgine 18:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol, again, I don't "disagree" with the material. It is not my opinion or point of view. As I said, those paragraphs I removed are factully incorrect. That has never been in dispute. It is very easy for you to confirm. Click on link 6, the article in new standard news. It talks about a lawsuit filed in August by a single person. Therefore the line that says "Joshua Sondheimer, an attorney with the San Francisco-based law offices of Michael S. Sorgen, who is representing one of the plaintiffs identified as 'John Doe'" is simply wrong, as he is not one of the 8 plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I don't understand the problem in me fixing it, or why you insist on following a policy that doesn't exist. But I'll leave it like this if you insist, even though there is no dispute, as I refuse to spend any more time on this that I absolutely have to. - TalkHard 22:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)