Talk:Military/Archive 1

Archive 1

This 'article' is sick militaristic propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.54.152 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Page Amendments Suggestion

Someone has tried to be helpful and has created many wikipedia pages titles "Military of " such-and-such a country, for many countries in the world. The intention of these pages seems to be to log details of those countries armed forces. Given the usage of the word "military" as an adjective, as specified in this article, should not all those "Military of " articles be renamed "Armed Forces of " - this would remove the unintended bias in the usage of terms understood more in American English than in all forms of English.

Agree. I think this whole issue has blown up because the original military of countries entries were copied from the CIA fact book which uses this terminology. English speaking nations can make their own minds up about their particular articles ( such as U.S. and UK pages ), but agree that it might be more helpful for claritys sake to rename the entries for other countries.JRL 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Early Militaries

The section 'Early Militaries should have a defined start date. Perhaps 600 C.E.? That's generally the year given to the foundation of the first civilizations - Rome, Han China, and the Gupta Empire in India. freestylefrappe 00:07, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang was not trying to impress god, he wanted to have an army to protect him after death. can someone amend that? Akinkhoo 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

I can't find the word 'Military' anywhere in the listed link from this sentence, so I'm moving here, and expanding the sentence to include US useage as well.

In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to matters relating to an army, as opposed to the naval and air force matters of the other two services: an example of this usage is here: [1].

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

the link does have official UK government usage of "military"...you just need to do a search on the word military..will put the link back to the main page.JRL 06:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Military Reserves, Team Action Needs and a dependent Forecast

While expanding united states usage of military as an adjective, military reserves grew out of proportion to the rest of the extant article as the words poured onto the page. If the text is cuttable or refractable by someone wiser than I (at the moment), feel free to make adjustments. I'm sure something in there is in need of small adjustments or correction, though it was accurate as of the time I ceased being a member of the active naval reserve fleet.

Anticipating a question on the call up of inactive reservist individuals, there have been several (perhaps dozens) of individuals which attempted to fight recall in the courts which made news splashes in the past two years wrt to remobilization for Iraq or Afganistan.

My inclusion of Military Force under adjective, is somewhat redundant of the title, and I'm sure, not different than the use the British or affiliated commonwealth states of the former empire would use the term. Hence, that probably should be organized outside the both the Brittish and US paragraphs... as your time and judgement permits! (Hey, I was just innocently visiting, and saw some text I could add!)

Someone ought to use a contact or three in Canada, New Zealand, and Austrailia in particular to address some of their local organizations toward the articles bottom. I'll mentikon the need to an India Wikiphile and a few Japanese. The same really goes for any country, but since Switzerland is already mentioned, readers of this should also consider making a few requests for input from Wikiphiles they know of across any international lines.

That will probably lengthen the article to such an extent that a 'List of Military Forces' or such article would be split out. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Definitely, the list shouldn't be restricted to a few countries, and therefore should be broken off into a separate article. Is the concise "List of militaries" not to awkward? Otherwise, List of military forces sounds fine, too. —Michael Z. 2005-07-4 21:24 Z

---

The above post was belated, thanks to a suspended animation window! FrankB

Types of Military Forces

How about Types of Military Forces AlMac 5 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

Define each type in a separate article, since various nations may have forms and structures not found elsewhere. As technology marches forwards, new types develop. AlMac 5 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

Space Marines

Strategic Rocket Command

Underwater Special Forces

Different Nations

Would it be practical to have an image of the world map, in which you click on a continent and you get that continent broken into regions, then you click on a region and you get the nations in it, then you click on a nation, and get the info on that nation.

The images involved could be used as a standard for many Wik articles that want to break information down by region of the world.

AlMac 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Growing Expertise

AlMac/Growing Expertise is another of my ideas. I am thinking in the Reference section at the end, not just where to go for more info, but where to go for self-education in this subject. AlMac 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Books

As a newbie to Wikipedia, there are things I think belong here that may in fact belong here, but I not found them yet. There are millions of books on History, including Military History. They represent a variety of viewpoints and theories and perspectives, often heavily influenced by the victors of conflicts.

I think Wikipedia ought to have a category Books or Book Reviews with sub-category Books about History with sub-categories of that Books about Military History and Books about History of various nations. These "reviews" would be like what I wrote on "Why the Allies Won WW II" ... what the book is about, from a reference perspective.

Get a reference copy of nations of world, regions of world. One nation at a time, see who has been editing the pages on that nation or region. Ask that person if they could work with you to produce an article on what Books and other reference materials a person ought to be familiar with to become knowledgeable about the history of that nation, region, and the major topic areas such as Military, Trade, Culture, and so forth. This article that is an overview of the reference materials on that nation, could then become a "main article" of both that nation page, and also referenced by a list of such articles from here and from articles on those various sub-topics. AlMac 10:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Games

Some research has already been done in association with Military Simulations that are about non-Western cultures. People familiar with such games, but not familiar with those cultures, might ask people who are editing those national regions, about the accuracy of these games, when it comes to educating us about them.

For example, I am not a student of Eastern Culture, but I enjoy several games that allegedly simulate apects of their philosophy:

• Go
• Dynasty
• Operation Olympic

What these games tell me (which could be distorted) is that the territory is sacred, but more important than any Capital city is the overall total territory that is being well managed agriculturaly. People each have important roles to play in society, with duties to their subordinates, and also to those to whom they report. Even if true, this is also superficial. It may be important in Wikipedia to identify games and other potential learning tools that allegedly help us understand some culture, and have people familiar with those cultures and nations say which of them do a good job, and which do a poor job, with respect to the understanding that is communicated. AlMac 10:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Category

Category:Military has about 50 articles in the main cateogry. Many of these should just be in subcategories. It also has about 50 subcats. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Status

I cleaned it up and reformated a bit. All that should remain is making it less based on the US. Elfguy 14:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Military aid & Military spending

I've created a stub for Military aid. There was no Military spending so I redirected it to Military budget - that also needs work. --Singkong2005 01:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

k sweet... now the status is someone deleted everything and just put "military". awesome... I need this frickin page for my project!

What does the military have to offer to the global; warmign subject...ntohign!!

Strongest militaries

Does anyone know where I can find a list of the world's strongest military powers? QuizQuick 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's up to personal opinions and biased sources. HIGHLY debatable.

-G

Specific militaries

Should this section be seperated from the article into List of militaries by country? MCG 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links Section

Why is their no External links section here can we bring it back?

Sources are needed for the statements about Israel's Air Force

The following excerpt from the article contains unsourced information with the use of weasel words:

"The Israeli Air Force has widely been considered as the greatest in the world [citation needed]. Israel has, on occasion, even trained American Air Force fighter pilots, as well as staging Israel vs. US aerial 'laser' dog-fights in which Israeli pilots have 'shot down'" more than twenty times as many jet fighter planes as the US 'shot down'"

Whoever found this information needs to be provide a source to corroborate otherwise it will be removed.--Geoffrey Gibson 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Israel is #1 in laser tag. Good job.

-G

British English usage

My 4th edition Concise Oxford Dictionary (printed in 1950) defines "military" (n. & a.) as "Of, done by, benfitting, soldiers". By the 7th edition (1982) the definition has broadened out to "Of, done by, benfitting, soldiers, the army, or all armed forces." The current COD (11th edition, 2004) goes for "relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces". Clearly there is wider definition of the term now than in 1950. Additionally, there are contemporary official British uses of the term "military" outside of a specifically army context. E.g. Royal Air Force police personnel wearing MP (for Military Police) flashes on their operational uniforms. Accordingly I have updated the section of British English usage. Greenshed 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage is not clear cut - for instance the RAF Police usage of MP on uniforms is nothing to do with the term military: they changed to wear 'MP' solely because NATO Standards required them to, as for instance did the German Feldjäger who also wear 'MP' brassards. It remains common to hear the expression 'Naval, Miltary and Air Force personnel', and it is more common to use 'armed forces' as an adjective rather, than to use 'military' as a general adjective. Moreover, there is also a well understood convention (at least until recently) that when capitalized the adjective 'Military' applies solely to the Army. The whole usage was complicated by the emergence of separate air forces which didn't have a suitable adjective to identify their personnel: up until then the terms military and naval had been a simple, easily understood usage.

(Mind you - a prejudiced person like myself would contend that no airman could ever have a 'military' bearing!) DickyP (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much of an Anthropologist?

What is the general phrase to use when describing the organization my Scot or Viking ancestors when they were a part of a group who raided? The "millet eating" defination of the Romans seems a little snobish and ethnocentric :) --Rcollman 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

very good

i love this article, i just got an A on my report! Sf49rox 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An Unnecessary Distinction

"Main article: Military history

Military history is often considered to be the history of all conflicts, not just the history of proper militaries. It differs somewhat from the history of war with military history focusing on the people and institutions of war-making while the history of war focuses on the evolution of war itself in the face of changing technology, governments, and geography."

"Military history" and "history of war" link to the same Wikipedia article (history of war redirects to military history). Clearly Wikipedia considers them to be the same thing, so why is a distinction drawn here? 129.170.202.209 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why when something talks about a topic so wide such as military of government, or architecture a Roman picture has to be it's representative? SHEeSh! (Unsigned comment from Jerahad 07:57, 22 June 2007)

I suppose because they invented much of it? It also avoids modern-day partisan issues. ROGER ^TALK 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the reason in fact. I could have posted there a US Marine, a Baath soldier of Saddam's time, a Red Army soldier, or even Che Guevara, etc... If you have an image you can suggest, it would be helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oh what a lovely war.jpg

Image:Oh what a lovely war.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hell'sAngelsPoster.gif

The image Image:Hell'sAngelsPoster.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Nazi poster Nederlanders.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Please do not come, read the introduction, decide you know better, and change it.

The purpose of the introduction is to summarise for the reader the rest of the article.

Given the complexity of this article, this particular introduction was written AFTER the article itself was substantially reorganised and rewritten.

The present introduction tries to capture the content of seven parts in three relatively short paragraphs, which to me seems a good effort.

on the addition of

A military organization is an organization which exists to fight wars. It has a legalized and legitimized use of violence in the interests of the state which it serves. In a democracy or other political system run in the public interest, it is a public force.

If you read further on, I am sure you will find it says similar things elsewhere. But this definition is simply wrong. This is a very general, and global article. Yes, the militaries of the worls now and in history have been used as police! Police forces are absolute infants in terms of history of military use of force! And whoever said anything about "it has to be a WAR"? So Vietnam was not an official war for the US military and Afghanistan was not an official war for the USSR's. And I can wager there are a good few people on all four sides that will put an argument for their legitimacy or otherwise, and that's before use of force was even considered something that had to be justified. Not so long ago people used to just march across the borders. Sometimes militaries used to go off on wars despite the wishes of their countries. That's because democracy is a bit on the young age also. You want to discuss public force, fine. I'll add that line under Military and society, but there were many red-linked concepts that would have led to articles dealing with just such issues. --121.218.225.141 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Armed forces and "Military"

Please see a discussion about the relationship between Armed forces and "Military". Maurreen (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

About the Chinese

   * Chinese armies relied so long on chariot warfare,
   * why cavalry, both in its light and heavy version, was introduced so late,
   * the lack of a proper navy for most of its history
   * and the slow development, if not early stagnation, of gunpowder weapons, including the fact
that technological impulses after 1500 came almost exclusively from contact with the Western maritim
powers and technological transfer of the Jesuits who were entrusted with cannon production.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 

Masculinity in the military

"it is important to appreciate the importance of femininity that runs hand-in-hand with masculinity. Just as important as recognizing the significance of both gender roles, it is also imperative in understanding that masculinity and femininity are gender roles and not sex roles."

"Because of the link between masculinity and men, men are more valued and masculine traits are considered the standard. The difference is masculinity and femininity are genders and men and women can be masculine, feminine, or both."

"Just as men play an important role in the military, women do too, and both feminine and masculine qualities are important."

"It is important that soldiers get the mentality of not wanting to be told what to do out of their heads, because it is unrealistic. No matter where one goes in life, someone will always be dictating what needs to be done."

"The problem with this is that women still comprise of a very small percentage of military personnel."

The above quotes and the general tone of the section seem a little too prescriptive/dogmatic for a lexicon, and should be changed.

--87.57.133.63 (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that the tone is dogmatic, it is also only representative of a single (and, perhaps, narrow) world perspective. Although this article is on military, it should probably stay away from being militaristic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.74.226 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, As an Australian Soldier, I can tell you straight up without trying to be sexist I might add, I can't see a woman, Any woman and I've asked every one I know, Women simply can't walk 40kms with 50kgs of water, equipment and ammunition. The core of any military is the fighting force, Everyone else supports said force. Women can do any job in the Australian Army apart from ANY combat roles, Period. Its simply due to A, Limitations of their body and B, if a Female Soldier gets shot, A Male Soldier would abandon their training to help her. We're trained to leave the casualty, Deal with the threat then go back, Men are hard coded to help women, Thus abandoning their training. Now, I'm sorry if you find that dogmatic but thats the core reality of it, From a Soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoRak0231 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• * 'As an Australian Solider' implies it makes your words more valid. It doesn't. Also, you've misread what is being said. That has nothing to do with the obvious bias in the article.

You are the problem with the ADF. And your views do not match current Australian policy. But this is not the forum to debate your archaic and quite misogynist world-view.

• There is no 'problem' with the ADF. Stop sharing your opinions. This is not twitter, reddit, or 4chan. This is wikipedia.

The article is certainly biased. The use of "important" so liberally and without justification certainly indicates a dogmatic style. It begs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.132.182 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the above issue problematic, but there are also major issues with the first part of that section. While I have no doubt that the militaries of most (if not all) major western nations are based on rather 'traditional' notions of masculinity and have often struggled to adjust to the assimilation of a greater role for women, how does the Bush quote about an 'offensive against terrorists' reflect this? There isn't even a subtext of gender relations in that quote; it's a rather generic thing signifying a certain attitude towards counter-terrorism strategy.

Further on, the article refers to 'heroic war soldiers' without clarifying whether this is a reference to an attitude towards the military or is a sincere description of soldiers. If it is the latter, it is highly problematic for an encylopedia article to use a term as loaded and biased as 'heroic' to refer to soldiers.

The idea of masculinity in the military is a very interesting and important theme which should be dealt with in this article but it certainly needs a more even-handed and specialist approach to prevent it from becoming a mere half-baked expression of somebody's incoherent opinions on the matter. Thank you, PamukSoundystem (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Countries compete for "biggest" nukes because of sexual imagery?

Honestly, what the hell? You don't need to be any kind of genius to notice that the writer who said it took an absurdly reductionist approach on the theme. Human's history is more than only "male-female opression history". Countries build nukes because it makes harder for other countries to mess with them, as everyone fears a nuclear war, and not because they want to proof how big their penises are. Furthermore, there ain't competition between women now?

The fact that a single book has a certain idea written on it doesn't proof anything. I mean, we are on an encyclopedia. Quoting isolated writters with excentric points of view is no better than original research.

177.189.73.249 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality

I wish to question the neutrality of military atricles/pages here on wikipedia. It seems that they mostly set the US of A's viewpoint as the norm, which it is not. Many articles/pages use references based on US of A's military, which might be easier to notice if one is not from the US of A. Please look into it, thank you.

Sgt.Cmd Moskus 911th Legion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.129.33 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

image in lede

There have been several recent edits to the image in the lede. Seems various editors want pictures from different national armies posted in this most prominent position. (Could it be they are promoting their favorite military force?) I've moved the image to the text with the hopes that omitting an image in the lede will put an end to this flag-waving. An image in the lede would be nice, but can we get one that is not associated with any particular military force?-- – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

“[C]ombating actual or perceived threats”

Does the threat have to be foreign (i.e., coming from without the state)? That appears to be the defining distinction between a police force and a military force, but history is not devoid at all of the exceptional cases when a military is ordered by a central government to use physical aggression on its own territory (e.g., Tiananmen Square, 1989). EIN (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to the role of the military / armed forces in the member nations to the United Nations / International Law?

I came here because I was looking for a place where to put the data on the salaries of the military in the RDCongo, yet I found no chapter on the Military/Armed Forces in the article on the RDCongo. However, I was under the assumption that one of the obligations of a nation state under international law and to be recognized as a member to the United Nations, was to be able to protect it's population and that this was mostly done by organising a military / armed forces pillar in a country. I was looking for an article to support this latter assumption, to support creating an article on the military in the RDCongo portal, yet I keep jumping from one article to another without finding anything on the topic. Can anybody help drilling to an article? And support creating more interlinks. Thank you.--SvenAERTS (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The term "military" comes from the Latin word for "a thousand," namely "mil-,"

As in millimeter, millenia, etc. ..which referenced an able group of a certain functionally large size enough to achieve a mission, if not of lethal engagement, then of diplomatic engagement with backup force.-Tekawari (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, your are wrong. "Military" has the mil- prefix which would imply that an army has one thousandth of the soldier unit, not a thousand times the soldier unit. Check your facts. Cite your sources. -Kenologica (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Kenologica (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Australia?

WP:NOTFORUM
Australia has a higher index rank than Germany, Indonesia and Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:21E:2B0:F424:7C2A:CED8:4632 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Masculinity in Military Women"

Whoever wrote this has a clear bias against the notion of women in the military, or at least beyond logistic roles. It is one thing to simply state the statistical dilemma with women passing the physical exams in the military by the standards of men who train for it. However, it's another to then take that evidence and then make a claim, on an online Encyclopedia, promoting this individual's personal ideology on gender roles. Speaking of women as the "life bearers" and saying that the military is thus a men's only service. This is both sexist and biased, the section either needs to be extremely revised or terminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1180:11C:C939:6149:79DB:F726 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed excision of Masculinity section

I propose excising the section titled "Masculinity" for either removal or removal and creation of a new article to its effect. It seem highly out of place and, as noted by the tags, has several unresolved and longstanding issues. While one could perhaps make the case that it should be retained if this article were more comprehensive (although I am inclined to think it would still be undue), given the article's relatively short length and C-class quality, an entire section dedicated to a very niche and highly specific (and evidently controversial) topic is entirely unwarranted. Ergo Sum 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been no objections (or responses) to this proposal, I will carry it through. The masculinity section will be excised due to the continuing presence of neutrality and original research disputes, especially the fact that it gives hugely undue weight. Ergo Sum 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge Armed forces to Military

This merge has been proposed before at Talk:Armed forces, where there have been some (unreferenced) claims that armed forces may be broader in scope than the military. The military, as described in its introduction, generally consists of an Army, Navy, Air Force. As I understand, "armed forces" could possibly also include paramilitary, civil defense and/or militia. Regardless, the article Armed forces is not viable as a stand-alone article, and readers may miss out on all the information presented in Military if they only see the former. I suggest we should merge Armed forces to Military, and any difference between the terms can be described therein. There was also a discussion about the terms at WikiProject:Military history. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Y Support I was just editing some articles on Bosnian Wikipedia and had the same idea. What a coincidence :) --Munja (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Except for some details about the possible distinction of the terms, as well as some "See also" links, it seemed everything at Armed forces was already mentioned in Military. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate decision as the widespread use of the term military meaning all armed forces is a very recent innovation and is driven by American usage. It's general usage as such was only included in the OED as an additional meaning in the 1980s. I have newspaper photos from the same period which describe 'groups of naval and military officers ...' showing the narrower meaning as the norm. Indeed I have an American one which uses the same phraseology from the 1950s. My 1926 edition of Webster does't offer the wider meaning either. The British Armed Forces explicitly retain the distinction formally if not necessarily in everyday exchanges. Hence the Manuals of Military Law, Naval Law and Air Force Law were replaced by the Manual of Service Law, and the Military Cross remains solely an Army decoration. Indeed my naval friends even now object to being referred to as 'military'.DickyP (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP didn't decide this -- reliable sources did. Yes, it has changed fairly recently; so? No one's interested in an "old" online encyclopedia. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually WP did decide this - the use of 'military' is open to multiple meanings and 'Armed Forces' was accurate. WP has decided to go with just one meaning and ignore the other. The entire article title decision is based solely on the American understanding of the word 'military' whereas 'Armed Forces' is an internationally recognized expression. DickyP (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence that we're not following sources? That would be of interest. Individual editor assertions without evidence are of no interest. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Defence/Defense

I have noticed that both spellings are used in this section. Defense is the standard American spelling, whereas defence is British. I don't know Wikipedia's guidelines but one or the other should be chosen. 139.222.81.7 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:ENGVAR we first go by subject. If an American topic, we use American spelling. If British, or Canadian, Australian, etc. we use those English variations. If it's a non-national topic, such as the military, we go by what was used when the article was first written. We'd have to go back in the article history and see which was used first, -s or -c, and change any instances accordingly. If it's an non-national article, we just try to be consistent within that article. freshacconci (✉) 14:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider this is actually worth worrying about as British usage also uses 's' in adjectives and adverbs such as defensive. Just one more example of the simplified spelling rules adopted by American English and editors could spend all their time weeding out conflicts - far less problematic than the usage of words which have contrary meaning in the two languages. DickyP (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

BRD: primary purpose of military is warfare

There's been a lot of editors boldly adding various non-warfare roles for military to our opening lines for this article. I'm reverting them, and opening this discussion, following WP:BRD. Per BRD, please do not re-add them (or any others) until this discussion reaches consensus. (Any that are added should be reverted for the duration.)

The first lines of any article should uniquely and succinctly define the subject by what differentiates it from any similar subjects. Mixing this with additional descriptions that could equally be applied to other subjects does the exact opposite.

For this subject, military, it's all about warfare. Yes, a nation's standing military forces can be employed in other duties, and even often are, as a nation can easily find multiple uses for such a well-disciplined force that's otherwise idle in peacetime. But all that is incidental to the only reason for having a actual military: they are an absolute necessity in warfare, where nothing else will do. Even if often employed in these other internal civil functions, these do not require a military; hired guards, special police, civil workforce, militia, or specialized paramilitary organizations will do these other jobs better and far cheaper than a military ever could. If there was no war, there'd be no military.

Note I am fully in favor of listing these common other duties, just not as equal significance to warfare. Warfare first, and other roles after.

Comments? —A D Monroe III (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Many military forces don't spend much of their time actually fighting wars, and do spend a lot more time providing other functions, like internal security or even internal suppression. So, is *their* primary intended function still war fighting? (Hohum ^@) 00:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course to other tasks should be mentioned. It is easy to check about what is written in defense laws and some constitutions even. That about warfare as only function, is maybe just private opinion, and wikipedia is not about promotion and advocacy and private opinions. One of good examples is German basic law/ constitution Article 87a. Btw it was added after warfare and mentioned just. I guess lawmakers of that laws and constitutions knows why they added that functions.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Some would say to main function of military could be deterrent to potential aggressors ,insurgents, secessionists groups, terrorists etc. Also as support and giving weight to diplomacy. But lets see just the facts.

This look as good leading secction

A military is an armed force typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, intended for warfare, and other tasks and responsibilities according to state interests and policies, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard. The main tasks of the military are usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against other states and external armed threats, also in some cases to act as support to civil authorities in combating security threats. Beyond that, the military may be employed in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including internal population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and guarding important areas and persons.

"A military is an armed force typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, intended for warfare, and other tasks and responsibilities according to state interests and policies,"- Mentioned to it is intended for warfare also mentioned about other missions. Other the most important missions can be found in constitutions, defense acts, laws. German basic law as example and lets say website armed forces of Norway missions as source.

It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard. - Fine.

The main tasks of the military are usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against other states and external armed threats, also in some cases to act as support to civil authorities in combating security threats.- Mention of the main tasks usially how defined in many countries.

in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including internal population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and guarding important areas and persons. - fine, depends from country to country,many military units do vip persons protection, presidents, royals etc etc fact. Spain, Sweden, India , Bangladesh etc etc.

Banovicmiki14 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks A D Monroe III for starting this discussion. I fully agree with the point made. The military's primary purpose is to deter or engage in warfare, and in addition it is put to other, secondary uses, such as to suppress civil unrest, protect VIPs, respond to certain civil emergencies and so on. The intro is now better than it was, I think, although the article as a whole is still a dog's breakfast - I would like to have a go at cleaning it up / developing it but I haven't yet had the time. Fugitivedave (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

People should put political personal opinions for own blogs etc. Facts are facts. And fact are today easy to find, even in top democratic countries how it is defined. Interesting how noone mention one of the main function of military nowdays.Peacekeeping operations. In many defence laws, constitutions main functions are : 1. Defense of state, teritory, population 2. Support to civil instititions 3. Peacekeeping operations, support to allies etc. That are fact easy to be found. All other opinions what military should do and should not do is personal pov. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Banovicmiki14. I agree with you that POV needs to be kept out of it. A D is stating (and developed by me a bit) that the PRIMARY function of the military is to engage in, or deter warfare (normally but not always on behalf of the state), and also that it has other functions. And he/she and I are saying that this is a fact, not simply a point of view. It also has reliable sources - see, for example, the US army Field Manual, Chapter 3 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1/ch3.htm You make a good point that peacekeeping is not mentioned explicitly - and it ought to be - but I believe this falls under deterring warfare. What do you (and others) think about this? Fugitivedave (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For me this looks fine. "A military is an armed force typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, intended for warfare, and other tasks and responsibilities according to state interests and policies, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard. The main tasks of the military are usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against other states and external armed threats, also in some cases to act as support to civil authorities in combating security threats."

We dont need to go into details. Maybe to this part look like "The main tasks of the military are usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against other states and external armed threats, in some cases to act as support to civil authorities in combating security threats and participation in multinational peacekeeping operations".

Banovicmiki14 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is one interesting reading, thank you. ."The Army's purpose is to serve the American people, protect enduring national interests, and fulfill national military responsibilities. The Army, with the other services, deters conflict, reassures allies, defeats enemies, and supports civil authorities". Example of small country. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So my suggestion about this article beginning should be in short: 1. Military is Organisation usually officially authorized by state.

2. Purpose of military: Intended for warfare and other tasks and responsabilities according to state policies and interests.

3. Standard main tasks . Defense of state, population and teritory. Support to civilian authorities. Participating in peacekeeping operations.( Note to we talk about standard tasks in top democratical countries. E.g Norway armed forces Etc. This is kind of norm in many counries. So it is common.)

4. Beyond that sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, intelligence activities, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies, national honor guards, protection of important persons. ( depends from state to state etc, conditions, political way etc.)

Somewhere should be maybe metion about deterrence too. Like intended for warfare and detterence and other tasks according to state interests. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

First, thanks to all for the quick responses in joining this discussion. With active participation, we should be able to get good ideas to meld into a broad consensus.

Second, can we please all follow WP:THREAD here? If this discussion continues at this pace, we're going to have to keep it visually organized to follow it.

Third, I repeat, no one's advocating ignoring other roles for military, this is only about keeping warfare primary in the lede. (Sorting out the mess that is the rest of the article should follow the lede after it is corrected.)

Now I'll return to threaded response to the last post, per numbered points @Banovicmiki14:

Point 1: That "usually" is significant; not all militaries are officially recognized ones. This means point 1 shouldn't be emphasized over warfare, since that applies to every military.

Point 2: "and other responsibilities" is vague, so doesn't help uniquely define military as needed here. Adding "state" is again not applicable to all military forces.

Point 3: "Main" tasks listed are still secondary to warfare, so aren't "main" at all.

Point 4: I agree with point 4 in general, as long as military is exclusively emphasized before this. (Some minor details to be worked out here.)

I also agree that "peacekeeping" and "deterrence" should be included. Note that these are both aspects of warfare -- military positioned for this must be overcome, by warfare, for opposition forces to proceed. So, I'd list these before the others in point 4 (in some manner).

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no any official document or website about any army or military or so about missions where will will be written " only function of our military is warfare". I checked about 20 different militaries, documents and laws, some of them are Sweden, Ireland, Norway, Sebia, Denmark, Italy, Germany etc all from democratic countries and always is mentioned someting like defence, detterence, peacekeeping, assisting to civilian authorities and ither tasks.

Sometimes it is clear under 1.2.3.4 missions and tasks and then added "other tasks as decided by state" That are facts. So it should be totally freely added "intended for warfare and other tasks and missions". Banovicmiki14 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For the third time, I repeat, no one wants to say "only warfare".

As to "other tasks decided by state": "other tasks" is vague and unhelpful, and "decided by state" does not apply to all military, so incorrect.

As to "...and other tasks and missions": This is vague and unhelpful.

The sole purpose of the lede is inform the reader on what a military is, as opposed to other forces or organizations. To do that clearly and effectively, we must delay (not omit) any description that could be applied to other organizations. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Also to add in some official documents in some countries, e.g Singapore deterrence is on the first place and then if detterence fail warfare come. As norm and common to many countries is to militaries has some other tasks, and that is normal thing. And often can be seen to main tasks are as I wrote here. Defense, support civil power ( that depends from country to country about details but common thing is to always exsiting in some form so it should be mentioned as one of main tasks and in everyday life is common thing totally. And fact is to especially in peacetime it is the main task of military.) and peacekeeping operations in UN operations and EU NATO AU missions. We all have own private opinions but facts are facts.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have agreed on including peacekeeping and deterrence, as this is based on ability in warfare. Details of how are open to discussion. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis should be put about official militaries of sovereign states. Non state actors "militaries" has even more other functions, they usually act as police force, only armed force , only emergency service in that area under control. Noone said to warfare as primary task should be ignored but since long time ago it is not just about warfare. To be just written "usially primary intended for warfare" and "the main task of the military is usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against external armed threats" is ignoring facts about other tasks what are simple to mention. adding all that internationally recognised tasks and legal norms under "sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions" and mixing normal legal norms with "protecting corporate economic interests" "political agenda" is also wrong, That other tasks and responsibilities are added just after warfare as I saw, just mentioned. One example http://www.vs.rs/en/about-saf/who-we-are/missions-and-tasks as can be seen 3 missions being realized through the completion of different tasks Banovicmiki14 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following all your points here. I'll respond to the ones I understand; if I miss any, please restate them as needed.

On official military emphasis: I'm fine with official militaries being emphasized for the majority of the article, but this discussion is about the opening definition. There is no reason to limit the definition to one that doesn't always apply; we would have to immediately amend that definition in the next sentence, or risk misleading the reader. It would be like saying "a car is a vehicle with the engine in the front, unless it's in the back" -- much better to say "a car is a vehicle with an engine" and then go into engine details as helpful later.

We agree that militaries can be assigned different tasks; we're discussing the significance in the order they are listed, right?

You mention "sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions", "protecting corporate economic interests", and "political agenda" as all being "wrong". Wrong in what way? The wording could be improved, but the intent is to note that militaries are sometimes tools for military dictatorships and authoritarian regimes for selfish purposes, and sometimes get out of hand. Is this not important to include?

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We agree how to say , about what is the essence of this topic. We must to make it look not to complex , but also to say and mention all what is relevant. Also emphasis should be on as I mentioned already, sovereign states and current time . That website about Serbian armed forces has one good point about “missions”/functions and to missions are done through “tasks” . I can say to missions are all the same across Europe and many other countries has it defined the same, maybe different words but the same meaning. We should somehow all this put to not look complex and to has some meaning:

1. So lets say, militaries are intended primary for warfare . And then to mention in the same sentence if possible about also important missions/ functions , multinational operations (peacekeeping, support to allies) and support to civilian authorities. Even “intended for warfare” , we know about to in peace time, connected to war militaries function as deterrence and to in that time usually they prepare for war operations, keep readiness etc. But it is what we know, maybe not everybody know it, and this is WIkipedia, so ones who dont know should here find some stuff about what they want to know. But to make it short we can say intended for warfare and then to add what I mentioned. Keeping just "intended primary for warfare" can make confusion and it is not corresponding to the facts, contemporary time and also what is stated in many laws and even some constitutions across world.

2. About “It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard.” Perfect nothing to add or remove maybe on the end after what for military is intended.

3. Then we can say about the military may be employed in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honor guards, vip person protection( various units across world), Intelligence activities(many agencies are under military control, some cases just under military control/defense ministry/department, law enforcement( many cases of gendarmeries also under/part of military or defense ministry control across world) etc. Under that we can add stuff what depends from country to country etc. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Point 1: We agree on warfare being primary. So, it goes first and others later. Good.

I don't think we can list all the other tasks in the same first sentence; there are too many of them. Plus, again, these other tasks actually do not define military for any reader; these non-warfare-related tasks are more often done by organizations that are not the military, so actually are a disservice to providing a definition. I do think we might add a short phrase about the non-military tasks in general, if we can find a phrase that covers all or most of them at once. Note I think that would end up something like "are sometimes used in non-military tasks when idle." We can give a full list at the end of the paragraph. For the 4th time, no one is suggesting not listing the non-warfare tasks in the lede; we're discussing the order and emphasis, only. Please stop insisting that we must list them as an argument; we have always agreed on this.

Point 2: Agreed. Because readers are often familiar with these other terms, telling them that it's all part of the military is of high importance for the article's initial definition. This means not to add the long full list of non-military tasks before this. (I think that's what you are saying as well, but some of your edits appear to contradict this?)

Point 3: Agreed. Given points 1 and 2, this is where the full non-military list ends up.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok on the end considering all, and current time functions and tasks should be some like this leading section:

"A military is an armed force typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, intended for warfare and other functions and tasks according to interests and policies.

Main functions of the militaries in a sovereing states are usually defined as defence of state, state territory and population, deterence, participating in multinational operation and support to civilian institutions in a way as prescribed in national laws. Beyond that, the militaries can be employed in various sanctioned and not sanctioned activities within the state as: population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honor guards, vip person protection, Intelligence activities, law enforcement.

It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform". Of course some minor changes, grammar etc can work but it is as example of something what shows and include everything.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"typically officially ... sovereign state" does not belong before warfare. The "typically" shows it doesn't always apply. If warfare is primary, as we've agreed, then it goes first. It's the only attribute that applies to all military. I'm okay if the "sovereign state" phrase comes just after this.

You've moved the phrase on military uniforms to the end without explanation. The uniform applies to all sovereign states' militaries, and the uniform is what openly identifies and distinguishes the military from many other lethal-force organizations in the state, such as covert ops, etc. Thus equally important to sovereign state info, and should be kept together.

"and other functions ... and policies" doesn't actually say anything. This might apply to literally any organization on the planet. Perhaps "the state may employ it's military in various non-military tasks in peacetime". That's still a bit weak, but it's hard to make this more definite and keep it short.

You've moved "Army, Navy,..." to the end without explanation. As this is more definite that the list of non-warfare tasks, it should go before them.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Couple of more links for references,really many examples all around world it is just couple of links to present Banovicmiki14 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

More links German basic law article 87a Spanish organic law on Defense Tíitulo 3 Singapore Mindef and armed forces missions Soon will change article in a way as I presented and after "Main functions of the militaries in a sovereing states are usually defined as defence of the state, its territory and population, deterrence, participating in peacekeeping and in some cases support to civilian institutions", will add some of presented sources for content. Singapore example source will add under deterrence as source.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing I disagree with in these links, but I haven't found anything in them that affects this discussion on order and emphasis of tasks and description of military, except they emphasize warfare/defense. Am I missing something? Perhaps you could cite these several sources in-line to your specific reasoning points. Thanks. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

4 things. 1. I do work about solution and I do have results. 2. Results seems totally fine 3. I have a sourced content how militaries work nowdays and what are the main functions and it is kind of I have to explain well known facts. 4. talk page is not used in a way to if some user dont like something and if some user find to it go against his personal opinions so to user complain. PS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Banovicmiki14 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is here to help reach consensus. Please do not edit the text under discussion until there is agreement to the change. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Lets do in this way. This is how it looked: "A military is an armed force primarily intended for warfare, typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard. The main task of the military is usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against external armed threats. Beyond warfare, the military may be employed in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including internal security threats, population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honor guards."

This is my solution. Sourced content, well written, balanced. Not hide anything or puting something to appear less relevant, and it is contemporary:

"A military is an armed force typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, intended for warfare and other functions and tasks according to state interests and policies. The main functions and roles of the militaries maintained by sovereign states are usually defined as defence of the state, its territory and population, deterrence, participation in different types of peacekeeping/multinational operations, and in some cases support to civilian institutions. Beyond that, the militaries can be employed in various sanctioned and not sanctioned activities within the state as: population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honor guards, intelligence activities, law enforcement missions and guarding important areas and persons. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform."

Further explanation: Official militaries, of sovereign states, UN members, their tasks and functions and roles, as formulated in defense laws, and constitutions, are majority, the most important and the most relevant now days. As the most important they are the main trend/norm today and they take the leading place in this article. Some "other militaries" they comes second. If someone does not like to the militaries in many countries has/can be employed in other missions and to that “other missions” now days in this 21 century are also important and defined as that, what to say, it is personal opinion. Noone removed or denied warfare function it came first.

This will be included in the article as improvement of content instead of not sourced content. Period. This discussion is meaningless and should be closed, I repeat this is really improvement and that previous version is, not sourced and without any explanation.

Please do not remove well sourced content, made in good faith with good intention to improve this article. Further improvement is welcomed, of course. If there is further improved content, it must to be truly improved, balanced, sourced, true and also contemporary without pov-pushing views. Thank you. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Let's do it this way"? Sorry, NO. You cannot unilaterally impose your changes. No one editor can ever own any article. The only "way" here is the standard long-established Wikipedia policy of WP:BRD, which you are not following.

None of the changes you've done to the article, however well-intended they might be, have any agreement. You have sources, but they do not directly support your preferred changes. Even if they did, that would make them useful for discussion points; they do not override Wikipedia policy.

Unfounded accusations of POV-pushing reflect poorly on the accuser. Saying "discussion is meaningless" is much worse.

Please take some time to consider and understand this, and act accordingly. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course to there is no need for to make edit war. My edits are well explained, sourced, contemporary and made in a good faith and I welcome all new edits. New edits has to be sourced, trend/norm, and important to be contemporary, not pov pushing or biased. As one user said here in this discussion: "many military forces dont spend much of their time actually fighting wars, and do spend a lot more time providing other function" and that is true. Many militaries defined that functions and that is norm now, well not now but since decades ago. Peacekeeping, normal function defined in many countries in their national defense laws. Support to civilian institutions, normal function in many countries, defined like function and used in that way, some militaries normally has in their ranks also gendarmerie units who are not doing just warfare tasks. I understand to some users dont know that, or to they are not informed or to their worldview is different from ideological or any other stand but what is fact is fact and it should be presented in that way. As I wrote before, noone removed warfare function, but if someone try to present to only job of military and their only function is warfare, and to they dont do anything except that, that is ignorant or some hard pov pushing.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Banovicmiki14. I believe you're acting in good faith but your edits are not constructive. Wait until there's consensus. There isn't consensus yet, and I (for one) don't find your arguments convincing. Please do not edit the article until this conversation reaches a conclusion. Thanks. Fugitivedave (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fugitivedave When I saw this article, that leading section was poor and not sourced, then I added more content in a good faith and intended to put more details and better explaination in that leading section.I added what I was thinking to is well known, like lets say, military roles are actually defined in laws and some constitutions pretty clear.

As I wrote, no one removed warfare function, it is listed as first. But to ignore to there is other fuinctions as peacekeeping and support to civilian institutions ,to that functions are legal, and to it is defined in many countries, to many countries use their militaries for other roles not just to wage war, it is simple going against what the facts are.

If someone has something lets say against how militaries are used and what is writen in many countries laws, then that is under advocacy and pov pushing. I just reported what the facts are and how countries defined main roles of their militaries in short. I wrote it in one normal concisely way and there is sourced content and that is all.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The sources given for these edits in question here do not actually support the referenced material. It's obviously not appropriate to do things like reference "The main functions of the militaries maintained by sovereign states are usually defined as defence of the state, its territory and population, deterrence" to the website of the Singapore Ministry of Defence - it obviously doesn't support such a broad-ranging statement. There are lots and lots of reference works which describe the roles of armed forces which can be drawn on. This is WP:OR. As the material isn't referenced and there hasn't been support from other editors in the above discussion, I've reverted back to the stable version. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. About deterence, Singapore MOD website was used as a source for just that word. But ok it can be removed. I dont get, official, easy to find, documents about defense laws, constitutions, official websites of many militaries are not good enough sources for this wikipedia article??? Anyone who wanna to search can easy find missions of military in different countries. Also fact is to military is used for many things not just warfare. In theory and in some practical way.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

With three editors against the suggested series of changes by Banovicmiki14 as unhelpful on the whole and poorly sourced, and no other editor in favor, that's enough to establish consensus on that issue. Discussion can now move on to other details on the lede. Thanks to all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued BRD on Lede

I believe the current lede is agreed to establish that warfare is primary purpose of military, and that military forces are often given additional non-military roles during peacetime.

AFAIK, there are still some points unresolved:

1. Deterrence and peacekeeping should be noted (TBD)

2. "Armed force" links here; its merge into lede needs to be improved (TBD)

3. Sources (respected secondary or tertiary) are needed (TBD)

An editor, 109.92.4.197, recently tried to correct the "armed force" issue by reverting the lede to the one following the merge of Armed force to this article. It better explains how "armed force" and "military" are related, but changes the definition of military back to any state-owned professional organization that uses lethal force, which could include secret police and prison guards, and excludes any army that isn't part of a recognized state, which excludes half of the armies in all civil wars, etc. I've reverted that for now.

The current lede has "armed force", but doesn't really define it, except that it links "armed" to weapon and "force" to organisation. I agree this is a poor way to do this, but it's all I could come up with before the problems covered above started. It's hard to say "X is a Y that..." if Y also has to be explained.

Any suggestions for either point 1, 2, or 3? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• For point 2, I was thinking of removing "armed forces" from the first sentence and replacing it with "organised force of heavily-armed people", and leaving the "armed force" term itself to be better discussed in the 2nd paragraph, where it can be made bold to direct readers following the Armed forces link to this article. Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• For point 3, I've found some references, but they have much wider definitions than our current article covers -- basically anything having to do with soldiers or warfare, including uses that are more like adjectives, such as military schools and military grade. I do not recommend expanding the article to cover those, as it's already long and unfocused, and all links to this article current use it as described in the current article. But these wider uses of the term military are worth mentioning, via the "See also" heading if nothing else. So I'm going through the "See also" section to clean it up and expand it to cover these, at least until these related uses are incorporated into the main article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well it is not agreed, indeed nice try, and good little tricks to keep unsourced, not quality, essay style lead. "Half of armies in civil wars" how many civil wars and how many armies in present day and how many can compare with organised recognised militaries? Focus should be and must be on present day and current time. Well not many indeed. Peacekeeping and deterence seems familiar of course I first mentioned in my edits. Group of heavily armed people, hmmm wrong, police and even drug cartels can be organised groups of well and heavy armed people. Militaries are complex orgs and well it is like that. Search for the definition should start with looking different laws, constitutions, and official websites and how it is defined accros the world. That is logical way. If some user has something against how countries use militaries and some arguments against some militiaries or arguments for them, should make personal blog and there preach. Here we talk about facts not definitions from own heads in own words etc. Facts are facts. If my edits stayed I bet noone would remove any of it. I will look for my sourced content and will restore it when I have some more time, with some minor edits. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The only one not agreeing is you, Banovicmiki14. No one on Wikipedia is allowed to edit against consensus.

You mentioned "in preset day". This subject covers all of history, so present day cannot be the only focus.

Once again, we've all agreed on adding peacekeeping and deterrence; why keep repeating they need to be added? Please, make a suggestion on how to improve the current consensus version to add them; that would be very helpful. Just wanting the whole lede your way without consensus is less than useless here.

We've also agreed that warfare is the primary distinction for military; no one is stating that "armed people" is sufficient. Please stop making straw man arguments.

We've also agreed on getting WP:reliable sources. The sources you've found so far are not acceptable; they where all primary sources, biased, and do not support any part of the edits you've pushed. We need reliable, authoritative, secondary or tertiary sources. We welcome any suggestion you may have for any such sources. By the definition of WP, those are the facts, and everything else is WP:OR.

Rather than dismiss the whole of all comments, please respond specifically to separate points being made by others. That's what discussion means. "Everyone but me is wrong about everything so I'll do it my way" is the exact opposite of discussion.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks A D Monroe for holding the ring. I suggest the opening sentence read: 'A military is an armed organization primarily intended for warfare (also known as armed forces).' And then move on to other issues. I think 'typically officially authorised by a sovereign state' should be deleted. The usual categories are 'state armed forces' and 'non-state armed groups' (which has its own WP page, by the way). Other essential info is the common division between army, navy and air force (although many state and non-state militaries lack an air force and/or navy), the organization's characteristically heirarchical nature, and some of the principal other purposes for which the organization is used, particularly peacekeeping, internal security, and responses to civil crises (earthquakes, strikes). The second two paras of the lede don't really belong there - they don't make first-order points - I suggest deleting them. Fugitivedave (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Much thanks for your suggestions; I agree, except for some details.

I think your wording for the first sentence is easily an improvement on what's there now, even if not perfect. I'll make your change and allow for further future improvements.

Rather than just deleting reference to sovereign state, maybe reword to make a better contrast to a link to non-state armed forces, such as "though some are non-state armed forces". Since by far the most common concept of military is state-owned, I think it's important to keep it emphasized. I'll see if I can come up with some pithy contrasting wording, but suggestions are welcome, of course. For that, I'll need the correct name of that non-state article. Can you provide that?

I agree that the current wording of Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard is somewhat US-centric. I'm not too worried about that, since the US Military alone is 1/3rd of the world's military, but okay with any way of improving that.

The strict hierarchical organization is an excellent point; any military without that is just an armed mob. I was thinking of replacing "organised" to "highly-organised" in the first sentence to introduce this, but a more complete additional note would be good. Perhaps an added paragraph?

I agree that the last two paragraphs, once the first is improved, aren't strictly necessary for the lede, but the lede the lede is supposed to be summary of the whole article, which is currently nothing but disjointed random sub-sections with zero flow. So I want to leave those paras there as a starting framework for a summary, and likely even expand them, while the rest of the article is sorted out. (Note that I'm also adding to the "See also" section as a start for this start.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

For 2, the first line reads "also known as an armed force". This could be edited to, also known as armed forces. That's because in general, such forces are more than just one organisation in each country. People outside the US also refer to them as armed forces. Doing that would make it clear. --Specac (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I used "armed force" originally because the paragraph starts out with "military" as singular, and switching between singular and plural forms of the subject in a sentence is possibly confusing, or at least poor grammar. To incorporate your suggestion, I tweaked the wording to allow for the singular/plural switching with "armed forces". Please review this edit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's good because it's clear. I have heard and read both singular and plural used in different countries so, mentioning both is helpful. You've made some great contributions. --Specac (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued edit war on lede

And IP editor has replaced User:Banovicmiki14 in repeatedly reverting the lede disruptively without regard to consensus. I have reverted them again, and will ask for page-protection if this continues (unless someone else beats me to it.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Page is now semi-protected, so we can resume cooperative improvements. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Link Military branch

I recently put in a link to the Military branch article in the introduction of this article. Someone seems to have removed it without explaining why. The introduction already has a line that says It may consist of one or more military branches, so why not include a link to the Military branch article, in that line? --Specac (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit was in the middle of an edit war over the lede. Technically, with the lede under discussion per WP:BRD, editors should not edit it without consensus, but your edit is small and uncontroversial. I restored it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The edit is included now. --Specac (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

BRD on the Operations section

The article section titled Military#Operations has been recently deleted in total and then restored in total. Per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss.

Let's review the section's good and bad points:

• It's short, which is neither good nor bad. It does make analysis easier, and potentially less of a loss if deleted.
• It's has no citations. That's bad, especially since it's been tagged as such for over two years.
• The section starts by linking Military operation as its main article. That's not a good point, since that article is small and of low quality itself.
• It consists of three long sentences of low readability, with subjects and verbs almost obscured by numerous clauses. I'll do my best to decipher and summarize each of them here. (Others would likely to come up with quite different interpretations, which also speaks to their poor quality.)
  • Military operations are about using personnel and their equipment. -- obvious to the point of uninformative.
  • Military operations covers "policy interpretation", "allocation of capability", "goals and objectives", plus prisoners, civil affairs and civil order, occupation, and capturing equipment. -- several vague terms that are pretty meaningless followed by a few specific terms that make a very incomplete list, and are therefore inaccurate.
  • Military operations report on its "policy fulfilment". -- meaningless; it doesn't even specify who the reports are for.
• There is little or no correlation between the above an its main article.

I see nothing here that's worth keeping. While I believe it's possible to have a useful section on this subject, I'm not up to this, and per WP:NUKEIT, it would be better for someone who can do this to start free of this burden.

If no one disagrees, I'll delete the section after a few days. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section

Thank you for pointing out the issue. But the credit suisse report is almost 4.5 year old and outdated. So the source has become unreliable. But there is no current good source about military ranking formula in any other side than Global Firepower, and many reliable sites also uses their ranking data in their own site. So the data I think the latest data it provides is more reliable and acceptable for netizens than the old credit suisse data. There is visible conflicting report between the old credit suisse report in wikipedia and all other latest reliable military sites. Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A source being old is not the same as unreliable; it remains reliable for the time it covers, though we should indicate its age when we use it. Conversely, a source being new doesn't make it reliable. The new source proposed, Global Firepower, doesn't seem to be notable (it has no WP article) and doesn't cite what sources it uses, and has an overall "blog" feel -- a lot of flashy assertions catering to "netizens" and apparently lacking hard details. None of this necessarily makes Global Firepower less correct, just very hard for anyone to verify, which is most important. WP is founded on WP:Verifiability -- sources readers can readily double-check for themselves over anything that cannot.

Global Firepower can be used if shown reliable -- such as noting other reliable sources relying on it. Alternatively, another newer reliable source can be used if such is found. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Kingarthur581; I have taken the liberty of moving this comment of yours from where you added it in the above talk discussion, about an article section that has been deleted, to this discussion, about military power comparison, about which you have edited recently. If I'm wrong, please revert my move.)

Thank you for this information sir. Can this comparison chart be updated by data from Business Insider. Kingarthur581 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping some editor would respond to this with some experience with Business Insider, as I have none. But in lieu of other responses, here's my first impressions. Under Business Insider#Reception, it's depicted mostly as a business blog site rather than a research site, so I'm initially dubious. But it seems most of their articles reference at least one other news site. If the specific data/article on military comparisons in question was presented here, we could evaluate it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the reply, my question was on the "Military strength indicator" chart in the "Capability development" section under article Military. This chart seems to be totally outdated as Credit Suisse did not published any other military ranking list after this, which was published in September, 2015, and positions of countries as per their military strength is also not seem to be correct in comparison of every modern source because of the old data. Kingarthur581 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I was asking about presenting the Business Insider data/article suggested to be used to update the chart -- a simple link or something in a <ref> format -- so editors can evaluate it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't understand, here is the link www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2019-9. -- Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

That article uses Global Firepower as its source, making it no better than Global Firepower for ability to be verified. Again, GF doesn't reveal its sources or methods of evaluation, and is not a recognized notable authority, so fails WP:Verifiability. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Military Strength Indicator

I am not sure about the value of this table. Any table purporting to rank Israel below Egypt, Italy or Taiwan in strength is questionable. Any table ranking any state with nuclear weapons below a state without nuclear weapons is questionable.

What matters is not whether country x has this kit or that kit theoretically in its inventory. What matters is the capacity to actually employ military power successfully on the battlefield and the ability to project that power. A pure quantitative analysis is of questionable utility and likely not that useful. —IBrock (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That table from Credit Suisse is ok, it has a value since it is sourced and seems as one serious work. Maybe I also don't like what I see on that table, or maybe I don't agree, but authors made it like that, they took responsibility and they got published, and Wikipedia works on that ways so that is it. If another newer reliable source is found then it can be used but it must be reliable, and with authority, not some blog or some wish list. So here I agree in general with editor A D Monroe III. Nubia86 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The table produces what becomes inevitable in much quantative analysis that is undiscriminating. The table suggests that because country x has y number of tanks - which could be Second World War Tanks - it provides that country with a certain "power index". That is really only marginally useful. I understand that it is a published source so one can keep it up. But it doesn't really rank the major powers very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.106.108 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Only the active personnel are simply counts. Notice that all the rest are adjusted relative indicators of military strength, from 1.00 to 0.00, taking many military effectiveness factors into account. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Uganda is the number one powerful country in the whole world 41.75.191.106 (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

India has moved to 4th place and japan slipped one place to 5th. Turkey also came in top 10 2401:4900:B94:BCE5:845D:9514:26A7:352D (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

India vs Japan, who is on 4th place?

It is not clear who is on 4th as the position is being continuously changed from India to Japan and vica versa. Yellow Tiger 29 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As no one has answered me, I am placing India on 4th place Yellow Tiger 29 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The way to find out who is placed where is to read the cited reference. I have corrected the order in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

Sweden should be on the list, as they have more main battle tanks, non nuclear submarines and military aircraft than Canada. Also the numbers of active, reserve and voluntary personnel is outdated. Dream1walker (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We need a source we can cite to change the list. The current source we're using, from Credit Suisse, is a few years old, and things may have changed, but no better source has been yet found. We have to use one single source for all nations in the list, as different sources will have different ways of counting military strength, so cannot be compared together in a list. If anyone has a newer, better, reliable source for the list, please let us know. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

replace japan with Indi 2409:4040:E94:5ACE:8D32:7BFC:ADB0:6E59 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Why? and what's Indi? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

142.112.238.190 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

america is the most powerful country in the world

If "powerful" means militarily, then this is already stated in the article. For any other meaning of power, that would be off-topic for this article. If some other change is meant here, please restate in "change X to Y" format. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 05:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Shahirafgnw (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC) afghanistan is de best

Afghanistan is the best Shahirafgnw (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay Shahirafgnw (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cadets

This article could have a short section summarising the different military cadet forces of the world. Like the British Community Cadet Forces and the Russian Young Army Cadets National Movement. Should it have one? --Dreddmoto (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are the considered a part of the military of these countries or just a military-sponsored youth program? Garuda28 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the usefulness of that. This is a general overview article about the armed forces. In almost all cases that is government programs and not part of the military.109.93.122.237 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  109, I see what you mean. Thanks. Perhaps links to those articles in the See also section would be helpful? --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Still I don't see the usefulness of why we would put that under "see also" links to "those" articles. There is no links under "See also" to lets say, the US armed forces. Maybe if there is one single list of cadet organizations/forces ok, but again they are not part of the military. Also they are not common in all countries and this is general article. They are just organizations, sponsored by governments with some training and how much of it depend from oraganization to organization. So all in all that cadet forces/organizations ect are not part of the military and that is it. 109.93.121.223 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

109, that's a helpful explanation. It's good for users to discuss edits before possibly making them. Thanks. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Garuda28, your description of them as a military-sponsored youth program seems to be the best way to put it. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Military Strength Rankings

I added a current source, ranking countries by their military prowess in 2020, as opposed to the highly outdated source from 2015. My source, Global Firepower, is cited as a source by numerous others[2][3][4][5][6], yet my edit was reverted. Also, can someone please fix my update to the table, because I couldn't figure out how to get rid of a blank column. Thanks, Bill Williams (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see no reason for 'www.globalfirepower.com' to be a reliable source given it doesn't identify its authors or editorial process. The various websites you've given as referencing it are all unreliable or low quality sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely false, some of them are mediocre sources, but the point was it is cited in the media, and they are not "all unreliable or low quality" considering [7][8][9] at least three of them are rated as "high factual reporting." Provide some evidence that a five year old, completely outdated source that was last cited in the media years ago, is better than a less than one year old source recently cited in numerous outlets, before unnecessarily reverting my edit. Bill Williams (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how a simple google search of "credit suisse military strength indicator" comes up with Business Insider and Global Firepower as the first four results, because the last time major news sites used your source was years ago. It would simply be better to find another reliable source of more recent rankings or completely remove them if you wont put mine in, because five year old rankings simply give a misleading idea of reality. India has significantly expanded operations to combat China, Saudia Arabia towards Iran, Iran towards Israel and others etc., your list doesn't even have India above Japan, and Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't even on there. It's a complete joke to use rankings from 2015 in 2021, please just remove them or replace them with something more current. Bill Williams (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D:@A D Monroe III: do you guys have any response, again I think the table needs significant improvement because it is outdated, and my source is cited by other reliable sources, including Business Insider. Bill Williams (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think either mine should be implemented, or another source that's more current, otherwise the table should simply be removed because it's too outdated. Bill Williams (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing it, as it's impossible to understand what these tables mean (e.g. what does it mean for India to be rated as 0.81 on tanks, and why is the US rated at 0.95 on aircraft carriers and France at 0.90 despite the US having lots more carriers?). Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right, I'll just remove it because their reasoning is unclear and their rankings are subjective. Bill Williams (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Because 154.117.216.222 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Because I need to protect my facebook 154.117.216.222 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Because I need to protect my facebook 154.117.216.222 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Self-Defense Forces" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Self-Defense Forces and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12 § Self-Defense Forces until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Toadspike (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military → Armed forces – More WP:PRECISE and unambiguous define the topical scope of the article. This days the term 'military' may refer as only to an army, thus not including a navy and air force; or may refer to all armed forces. The widespread use of the term 'military' meaning all armed forces is a very recent innovation and is driven by American usage. It's general usage as such was only included in the OED as an additional meaning in the 1980s. I have newspaper photos from the same period which describe 'groups of naval and military officers ...' showing the narrower meaning as the norm. Indeed I have an American one which uses the same phraseology from the 1950s. My 1926 edition of Webster does't offer the wider meaning either. The British Armed Forces explicitly retain the distinction formally if not necessarily in everyday exchanges. Hence the Manuals of Military Law, Naval Law and Air Force Law were replaced by the Manual of Service Law, and the Military Cross remains solely an Army decoration. Indeed my naval friends even now object to being referred to as 'military'. Srapa (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Military is a pretty well term and means pretty clear staff and I really don't understand some arguments, especially what some personal friends object to. In 99% of countries the term military encompasses all of the branches, so the army, navy, air force and other branches are almost always called Military branches. Nubia86 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Military' is the generic term, and can be applied to states without formal armed forces (e.g. much of Europe before modern times). Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a "solution" looking for a problem.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baller2684 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shilohf.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)