Talk:Civilian-based defense

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civilian-based defense. 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/20160522051753/http://pbogdonoff.home.igc.org/cbdhist.html to http://pbogdonoff.home.igc.org/cbdhist.html/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge with social defence

Both articles describe the same concept, but from two perspectives. This article "Civilian-based defense" uses Anglo-american terminology, while "social defense" is a verbatim translation of the continental European - eg German - name. I suggest to merge the non-duplicate content from "social defense" into this article and then it a redirect. --h-stt !? 17:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable proposal, so perhaps merge to Civilian-based defense but base the article primarily on the content/structure at Social defence. The problem with the current Civilian-based defense page is that it seems primarily an exposition of Gene Sharp's views. Klbrain (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Klbrain's recommendation. Daask (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content

To some idea or concept be at Wikipedia it needs wide acceptance and notability since this is not a soapbox or advocacy forum or a promotional tool. Not about someone rising question or support something, I removed some arguing and also one claim about Lithuania, to something being recognized also need wide recognition to it is really like that. For example Lithuania has a total defense concept with strong military pillar not just civilian based defense or so. I understand that some people wish so much for their concepts to be approved or implemented, but Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any kind. 109.93.55.169 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive local knowledge as a defense strategy

This article could include a section on the use of exclusive local knowledge as a defense strategy

Kūlgrinda in Lithuania
The removal of street signs during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Daask (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]