Talk:British Armed Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Armed Forces article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Government,
a WikiProject related to the government of the United Kingdom.

Contents

[edit] Page move

Would this page not be more appropriately moved to British Armed Forces? I have never heard the term Military of the United Kingdom (for a start, in Britain 'military' tends to specifically refer to the Army, not the other forces), but British Armed Forces is commonly used. United States armed forces is the title of the article about the US military (which ironically is a term that is commonly used). -- Necrothesp 13:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I've listed the page for a move (I can't do it myself). I have heard the phrases 'British armed forces' and 'Britain's armed forces' or, more commonly, 'British forces' many times, but never 'Military of the United Kingdom'. Possibly there might be controversy over the use of 'British' rather than 'United Kingdom' (Great Britain doesn't include Northern Ireland); if this is the case, 'United Kingdom armed forces' would be a decent second choice, although again this looks slightly odd grammatically, as if it should be 'The United Kingdom's armed forces'. Armed forces of the United Kingdom would be my third choice, then. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to British Armed Forces

Military of the United Kingdom → British armed forces – {Seems a much more common name; would agree with United States armed forces; 'British armed forces' sounds more natural, and in my personal experience is the term used in real life} — Ashley Pomeroy 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. 'British armed forces' is the commonly used term. 'Military' used as a noun would be regarded as a bit of an Americanism by most Britons. -- Necrothesp 20:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strongly. See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So, for apparent dogmatic reasons you advocate using a term that is never used? I really don't see any point in that. -- Necrothesp 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I live in the United Kingdom and the term "military" is very rarely used when describing the British armed forces. Spending on the armed forces is "defence spending" and compulsary service is known as "national service" not "military service". Please can we change the article's title to reflect these facts. Military of the United Kingdom should redirect to the British armed forces page and the title, but not the article, needs changing. David.
  • Oppose. Armed Forces and Military are synonyms, and unless "Armed Forces" is the term officially used, it is better to stick with what the vast majority of other articles use. srs 18:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Move shouldn't be stopped simply to conform with other articles. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move to fully-capitalised form (British Armed Forces) - this is a proper noun. James F. (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. violet/riga (t) 10:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as proper noun (British Armed Forces). Dragons flight 17:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support proper noun. "Military" is the de facto standard in Wikipedia for non-English-speaking countries' articles. Otherwise, local custom should prevail, unless you propose to move Soccer in the United States to Football in the United States for the sake of the "standard" in Category:Football (soccer) by country. Joestynes 07:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe Armed forces is how the "Military" would translate from an official designation in most native languages. The latter is more like a slang word that became de-facto standard for the sake of simplicity. DmitryKo 19:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strongly Lolly 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Not sure where this concept of Naval Service = Royal Navy AND Royal Marines comes from. The Royal Marines is part of the Royal Navy. There is no common usage of any 'Naval Service' phrase. Maybe in some context unknown to me (ex-RN) that phrase means something. Strongly suggest that specific contexts be avoided in this global encyclopædia. Googling 'Naval Service' certainly doesnt give you links to do with the Royal Navy or Marines. Will amend (v slightly) to read this way if okay. Facius 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See: Talk:Military_of_the_United_States#Requested_move that article has recently been moved (26 Mar 2005) from United States armed forces → Military of the United States to fit in with the standard -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, for apparent dogmatic reasons you advocate using a term that is never used? I really don't see any point in that. -- Necrothesp 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not dogmatic but a standard for the category. The page its self can have any text which is appropriate (as it does), and redirects take care of the rest. Philip Baird Shearer 21:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it not dogmatic when a 'standard' is used which is not the name by which the organisation is actually known? Is that normally the policy we have on Wikipedia? I think not. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would support "British Armed Forces" if that's the official name (like Australian Defence Force for the Military of Australia) but I won't support "British armed forces" which I find inferior to the "Military of..." format. The article seems to suggest there are a number of alternate names so unless one of those is paramount, I think "Military of the United Kingdom" is an adequate compromise. So based on that, I don't really know which way to vote... Geoff/Gsl 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to the MOD's website in which it quite clearly and consistently uses the capitalised term "Armed Forces" to refer to them. And to answer srs's claim above, it is completely untrue that "military" and "armed forces" are synonymous. They may be in the USA, but in Britain "military" only tends to be used as an adjective, and in most cases technically only refers to the Army and not the other services (Military Secretary and Military Attaché, for example, which only refer to army appointments - Naval and Air are used as the adjectives for similar appointments in the other two services). I would say that to use an artificial term that is not actually used in the country of origin just for consistency's sake is inappropriate and is in complete contradiction to the idea of an encyclopaedia. Do we artificially name other articles just so they look pretty in category lists? I've not noticed it. So why here particularly? -- Necrothesp 00:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The OED [1] disagrees with the assertion that Military is not synonymous with Armed Forces. It, and the MOD website, also refute the notion that "Military" only refers to the "Army". srs 02:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most people in Britain would not use "Military" as a synonym for "Armed Forces", despite what the OED says. It would be looked on as an Americanism. And you will note that I used the terms "technically" and "in most cases" when describing the use of "military" as an adjective within the Armed Forces. Outside the Armed Forces it is naturally used as a basic contrast to "civilian". It is also used as an adjective to refer to the Armed Forces in general terms (as in "military aircraft") where a more specific term does not exist (obviously, since "armed forces" cannot be used adjectivally). That does not change the fact that as a technical term it refers in the UK to the Army (otherwise the Military Secretary would work for the whole Armed Forces, whereas in reality he is an Army officer and the Naval Secretary and Air Secretary are his equivalents in the RN and RAF respectively) and as a noun it is rarely used at all. I also note that you do not answer my point that the MOD website quite clearly uses Armed Forces consistently to refer to the British Armed Forces, which, without obfuscation, is actually the point at issue here. The Times Style Guide also says that Armed Forces should be used capitalised, incidentally. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A google search shows the following results:

  • "British Armed Forces" 61,600 results
  • "HM Forces" 33,800 results
  • "Her Majesty's Forces" 6,840 results
  • "Armed Forces of the Crown" 4,340 results
  • "Military of the United Kingdom" 3,580 results (many of which come from Wikipedia and its mirrors)

Don't want to repeat what's already been said, but the use of "British Armed Forces" is the most predominant term in the UK for the military. The official title is, however, Armed Forces of the Crown but meh. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My personal view is that the term "Armed Forces" is a somewhat more passive and euphemistic term for "Military". It seems to me that its always our "Armed Forces" versus their "Military", hence my preference for some uniform naming (whether it be armed forces or military). Granted, that it's not likely that everybody else shares my perception of these words, but it does look odd when only the USA and UK pages are titled "Armed Forces" with the vast majority of the rest of the countries following the "Military of" format. I would much rather the official title is used (and if it's Armed Forces of the Crown, then so be it), and failing that, I would think that "Armed Forces of the United Kingdom" would be preferable as the country page is at United Kingdom, not Britain. srs 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


HI mates i have a question to ask that i want to find an answer to for my articale. and i hoped i can find it over here. who can enlist to the british armed forces? can non uk citizens can join in and how? please answer me on my discssion page. Oraien

[edit] Proper noun

I think the move should go ahead but would like to ask if people think it is a proper noun or not. Please decide between the following two options:

British Armed Forces
  1. This one. James F. (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. User:Dragons flight (from comment above).
  3. Yes, it's a proper name. -- Necrothesp 11:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
British armed forces

[edit] Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Proper noun British Armed Forces. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Armed Forces of the Crown

The statement that this is the official name has been tagged as needing a citation. If this is successfully sourced as being the official name, shouldn't we move the article there? Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the official name - there is no one official name - it's just a very formal name used for the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. David 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Personel

What is the exact number of personel in the regular forces as of 2007? It's been changed to 187,000 but I thought it was still around 195,000?

[edit] "Second highest spending?"

This article claims the UK has the second highest spending of any military in the world. The CIA World Factbook, [[2]], places it at fifth, far below China, which it places second. Could someone enlighten me and resolve this discrepancy? If it's a matter of different definitions or something, the statement should still at least be qualifed. Mycroft7 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Come 2011 the MoD budget will be US $74 billion, not sure how that compares to China but it is an official figure.


This still needs to be resolved. I cant see any different definitions. Perhaps go ahead and change it. Jamierc 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA is incorrect and out of date, and it is biased to the USA

Why is this even an issue? what problem do people have with Britain being the second highest spender? My issue is having the MOD's budget being interpreted as the collective budget of the Services. Remember that the MOD employs 90,000 civilian staff. Which is why the 33bn figure should be in the MOD's article.


The 'second highest spending' claim is based on figures officialyy announced by different countries' governments. In these Britain does come second, but a number of nations (probably including China, Iran etc) state their military spending as far below the reality (China is purported to spend three times more than its official figure, for example) for purposes of national security, top secret research and development programmes (sometimes illegal), etc. 172.141.130.245 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should the CIA, which states that France spends 2.6 % of GDP as opposed to the UK's 2.4% of GDP, be biased against Britain? Please note that France now has a higher GDP. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.19.172 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gays and lesbians"

The article states that "Gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since the change of the Millennium. The British Army participates in Gay Parades and actively recruits this demographic." Seems a little non-politically correct, to say the least. Maybe, since 2000 sexual orientation has not been a factor considered in recruitment? FeralWolf 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt really seem that bad to me, however be bold and edit it yourself if you have a problem!--NeoNerd 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The top right hand side info box is riddled with Americanisms that need changing. Anyone know how to customise these infoboxes ? e.g. 'active personnel' should read 'regular personnel', 'manpower' might be better described as 'personnel', and 'fit for military duty' is wholly ambiguous: how is the 'fit for' defined - it is not a British concept - and 'military duty' - is this for the army, as opposed to for naval or air force duty ? Points for pedants, perhaps, but I suppose it might as well be done correctly. Defining an infobox wholly loaded with Americanised terms does seem to introduce more systemised bias in favour of US English terms, although I'm sure it's not intentional.--jrleighton 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPA

Hello all! I was wanting to add a small paragraph, or even a single sentence explaining that as of this month all Armed Forces personnel perform their administration, and are paid via the Joint Personnel Administration system. Anyone fancy a stab at it? Any suggestions?! Cheers! --LookingYourBest 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I created the JPA page, so I guess I have a vested interest in getting people to see *my* page! lol! --LookingYourBest 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that in the grand scheme of things it's not that significant, although I acknowledge your fondness for it.
OTOH the article page is probably notable enough but it'll need some work to bring it up to scratch.
ALR 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to all this, so I was hoping other people would look at the page and add and amend it as happens with all wikipedia pages. I acknowledge it isn't that brilliant yet.
I'm not greatly fond of the system itself, but I think it's highly significant. If for no other reason than for the first time in it's history the Armed Forces administration has been centralised. I can't think of anything else that they do that's so unified?

--LookingYourBest 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment, but I'll add it to my watchlist and support where I can.
In principle the AF pay system has been centralised for some time, although AFPAA were working with three different pay and allowance systems. Nightmare for someone writing reports on personnel from all three services tbh.
What JPA has done is forced the three services to rationalise their business systems and in that sense is significant, but then so was the merger of DPA and DLO, or the formation of the DCSA.
ALR 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't this violate WP:SYN?

The British Armed Forces however have the second highest expenditure (only behind U.S.) of any military in the world and this high spending on (relatively) small numbers of personnel, research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world.

This sentence is jumping from two sourced facts (2nd highest expenditure and 22th highest size) to an unsourced conclusion ("one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world"). I'm looking to remove the last part of this, unless someone can provide a source.Stymphal 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom Military Oath of Allegiance Merge

It has been suggested that the above stub should be merged with this article. I agree and beleive it should be added to the 'personnel' section. Does anyone have any different views? LookingYourBest 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support So long as the entirety of the actual wording of the oath is moved. LordHarris 11:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the concept, it's very stubby and doesn't have much potential at present. Needs references for the Army and RAF usage, and clarification that RN don't use it, though.ALR 12:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Against Why shouldnt it have its own article? I bet the U.S Armed Forces has an article like it thats just as short, slipping it in in the middle doesnt realy help if your searching for it. I think if the article can be expanded it should be left alone. --Climax-Void Chat or My Contributions
Against The oath could be put on this page, but there's no reason to move it from the Oath of Allegiance article. Unless there are proposals to merge all the oaths on that article to their respective country/military pages? 81.96.205.240 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg

Image:2006 CVF STOVL.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 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This image is on wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. Under these guidelines the image cannot be reasonably used in this article. As such it has been removed from this article. Do not re-add it here without discussion. Thanks. Woodym555 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)