Talk:Conscription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article may be too long.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, if necessary split the content into subarticles and keep this article in a summary style.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Draft Evaders

"A scene in the film Alice's Restaurant accurately captures the chaotic situation in the lower Manhattan draft center where people slipped through the cracks. In this case, a person was rejected for a criminal record (littering), but people probably evaded for less. Conversely it was the poor and uneducated who were often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system."

This passage is simply inaccurate. This scene in Alice's Restaurant cannot possibly have accurately captured the chaotic situation with the poor and uneducated being often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system. The notion that the draft during the Vietnam War disproportionately conscripted the poor and the undereducated while the sons of the white middle and upper class used their families' influence to largely escape the war is not true. 79% of those who fought in Vietnam were at least high school graduates, compared to 45% for WW2. 50% of the veterans were from solid middle-class families, and about 25% from the lower-middle/"working" class, and the rest from below the poverty line. The passage is completely misleading and I deleted it.

http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 00:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invention of modern conscription

First of all, "invention" hardly seems an appropriate word. Second of all, this entire section babbles in a disjointed fashion. Third of all, the current paragraph ending this section concerning the United States has absolutely no bearing on either this section or the article in general, and should be deleted for these facts alone, let alone the fact that given the current political reality, it is utterly absurd in nature. -ampermc 04:10 UTC 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:11:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).


[edit] The Soviet Union had no professional army?

Obviously some higher up figures made a career of it, but the majority of forces were conscipts for several years, yes?

-G

[edit] Categories of militaries utilizing conscripts

Hello, I've just started Category:Conscription Armies, which is a category of articles about military structures which include conscripts. It is aimed to be a comprehensive list, but as a category it does not include explanations and other information as given in this article. Maybe the information presented here can somehow be integrated with the articles about the respective countries' militaries? Moonshiner 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

... content removed to save space ...

Many nations do not have any form of conscription, instead maintaining a strictly volunteer, or professional, military force, rather than relying on conscription, although many reserve the possibility of revived conscription for wartime and "crises" of supply.

Still represents a contradiction ("do not have any from"). Its also clumsy because its long and reuses "conscription" unnecessarily. Im going to reword it. If you are agreeable, go ahead and delete this section of the talk page so it doesnt continue to clutter. Otherwise we can continue to discuss. Catskul 04:09, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) (p.s.) Change of "forced" to "involuntary" is two fold: "forced" has negative conotation; "Involuntary" is a neutral. Second, in a related matter, forced can be interepred as threat of death/harm, where in not all cases is conscription under threat of physical harm, probably more often under threat of imprisonment or fine; "Involuntary" is more general and encompases both meanings.

[edit] Germany

The information is inaccurate: Serving for the "Technisches Hilfswerk" or for a voluntary fire brigade is usually not for 10 months continuously, but rather for 6 years with training exercises every fortnight and of course the duty to come in immediatly in case of an emergency. (Members of voluntary emergency response service usually have a pager for this purpose.)

The "Zivildienst", this one in fact 10 months, is the alternative choosen by the majority of conscious objectors, and usually means serving in an institution of public health care or the like.

I did not change the article yet as I'm unsure about the duties of the "Ersatzdienst" people in case of war. Maybe somebody knows more? sanders_muc 12:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, is it still possible to evade military service by being born in Berlin? My uncle was exampt this way. crimson30 22:43, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Not just being born in Berlin. But during the Cold War many young people flocked to Berlin, because all inhabitants of Berlin were exempt from the Draft, because Berlin was formally considered not to be part of West Germany under the 4-powers agreement between the victory powers of the 2nd WW. --89.54.2.233 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this discussion perhaps belong in Talk:Conscription in Germany? In any case, whichever article, please provide citations of reliable sources supporting whatever changes are made. -- Boracay Bill 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concious Objection

I propose moving the information on conscientious objection to its own page. Not all COs seek to avoid conscription; many CO's (including myself) asked for and received discharge from the military after serving in it for many years. Kricxjo 04:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] No conscription in China

I propose that the sentence, "Russia and China, as well as many smaller nations, retain mainly conscript armies." be removed. China does not have conscription (I don't know about Russia). Arashi 26-Nov-03

You're right I am from China and there is NO CONSCRIPTION!!! There is some sort of military training in highschool for a few weeks, students are taught basic military skills and self defence but thats all. However in China you are only allowed to be enlisted for 2-3 years. Even if you pass the physical test you are still discharged(non-commissioned officers are kept), this is done so that there are more civilans that are former soilders. Since you are not allowed to stay in the army for more than 2-3 years as an enlisted, this could be a form of conscription since you are forced to leave(Though no one is forced to join). Also not sure about Russia. Mao Zedong 24-Nov-05

That is also true about where i come from, Yemen. They abolished conscription in 2007. Google it and you'll see. That mapis inaccurate. Look at http://www.indexmundi.com/yemen/military_profile.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.106.21 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

There should be some more info about the situation in Israel where there's a growing movement of youth refusing to serve in the army (particularly service in the West Bank) and who are being sent to jail.

I'm unsure if the present tense is appropriate. It seems to have fizzled out at about 600, and may(?) be decreasing --Penta 07:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of Israel, there was a completely ridiculous sentence using it as an example:"Small nations simply cannot afford idealism on military matters, as has been demonstrated by Israel." I mean, what about, say, Belgium? and anyway, the style of this phrase is better fit for some article from the Washington Times than Wikipedia. Got rid of it.193.51.16.187 12:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)sredni vashtar


i would like to point out that...

"In the era of total war, the conscription is the only alternative for a small nation to build an army of credible strength without depending on alliances. This is particularly the case when the opposing state is significantly larger. In such a case, a voluntary force could not, regardless of its quality, stand against the sheer numbers of the opposing force. Israel, surrounded by much more numerous Arab nations, is a classic example of this situation."

...is not an accurate fact, israel has been taking military aid since its creation, and without the military aid, would have never defeated the arabs, nor declared itself a state on palestinian land. the paragraph makes israel seem like the defending victom and not the overpowering invader that it really is. im not being anti sematic, im not being biased, im talking out of facts i read in books in an american university politics class.7areega 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have been involved in writing this text, and I'm a Finn, having no jewish connections. You are right. At the present, Israel does not face an imminent threat of attack by all her neighbours. However, I think a credible case can be made that such a situation existed in 1948 and in 1960's. Anyway, I suggest we change the wording to a form which does not raise any questions about present political environment:
Finland in Winter War of 1940–1939, invaded by much larger Soviet Union, is a classic example of this situation.
This way, we can avoid taking stance to the Israeli-Arab conflict. --MPorciusCato 07:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
i wasn't really taking a stance, gave up on that a long time back since it takes too long and ends with no point proven, however i agree, Israel faced the Arab works back in the days, my point was simply that as opposed to what the section said, Israel did and still takes dump loads of military and financial aid from Europe and US. that contradicts "build an army of credible strength without depending on alliances." because they did get help on multiple occasions, would like to make you a list, but that would be time consuming and im lazy, would do it if you really want. thanks for being mature about this and not blasting me off as an anti-Semite like many more have done before when confronted.7areega 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Say what?

"Switzerland Although Switzerland has the largest standing civilian army in the world, the military service is voluntary. Conscription applies to male citizens in accordance with kind. 59 Federal Constitution the general dienstpflicht. The military service lasts in accordance with kind. 13 military law usually between the ages of 20 to 42. The requiring ones become refresher courses quantities until a rank-referred number of days to be taken into account is reached. For the crew ranks this number amounts to a maximum of 300 days. "AndyL 17:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did some cleanup on it, though I'm uncertain of the details of Swiss conscription--I believe conscripts can work for the fire department, Red Cross, etc. if they don't care to be in the military. Doovinator 14:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is true. Service of some kind is mandatory; this is usually, but not neccessarily, military service. --Spudtater 17:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Service Initiative (United States)

The money that Dubya authorized was not for reactivating the Selective Service; that would require an Act of Congress. He authorized more money for the Selective Service to be sure that it could be reauthorizedby then.

Response to "The money that Dubya...reauthorized by then.": I'm not sure what the conventions are for talk areas like this, so I'm not deleting the text. Simply put, the above statement is just more unfounded speculation. The simple fact is that in 2003 and 2004, the budget remained the same at $26 million, which is the same value proposed for 2005. This information is available from the US OMB website(PDF). A quick Google search indicates that in 1998 under Clinton, the budget was $24 million and in 2001, it was up to $25 million. These links are not as authoritative, but I'm sure if anyone cares enough, they can find historical budget figures on the OMB website. I don't think a $1 million increase from 2001 to 2005 is enough to conclude that "Dubya" is trying to reactivate the draft. This is the same point I was trying to make when I took this baseless conjecture out of the main article. (Edit: Here is another source of information that states the case better than I have.)

[edit] Draft evaders

This is written in a past tense that suggests that it is about a specific place or time, but where/when is never mentioned. Very vague...but hard to edit in case it is actually refering to a specific time and place (maybe Vietnam war/US)? Ideas? --83.108.22.14 15:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry's inclination towards mandatory service

The Revival of the draft page has been marked for deletion, so I am moving my talk: contributions, posted there to here.

Unfortunately, Kerry's 100 day plan has disappeared from his site. I still prefer the John Kerry forum URL I posted because it is an exact quote, obviously a cut and paste of the original. The quote is also preserved several other places on the web, just search google:

"100 day plan" kerry

Here is a URL that references a fact sheet:

Iowa Caucus candidate news

Bush in the second debate, practically did a "read my lips" that he would not implement a draft. Kerry is far more likely to implement a draft. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. In addition to his "100 Day Plan to Change America" where he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". Then look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe Bush is less likely to institute a draft based on his and Kerry's personal historys. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also--Silverback 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is a site that preserves the original 100 days page before it was purged page snapped from google before the purge--Silverback 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another site: Kerry pushes mandatory national public service
External links - this 'external link' links to nothing but a public webforum. absurd. if the quote is true, supportable & relevant to an article on the military draft, put a section in the text. the current treatment is a classic weasel tactic. Wolfman 15:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are now more links documenting the John Kerry position link that is posted in the **external links** section. Here is another quote that may be of interest, also from his web site "On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation."'

[edit] Serious NPOV problems

The last several sections under "The Problems of the Draft in the United States" are blatantly POV. Specifically these:

  • 8.3 The Draft As Slavery
  • 8.4 The Draft As Nationalism
  • 8.5 The Draft As A Weapon of Mass Destruction
  • 8.6 The Draft As Terrorism And Torture
  • 8.7 The Draft As Providing Justification For Terrorism

It's not proper for Wikipedia to state as a fact that, for example, "Once a nation views its civilians as military assets, i.e. subject to the draft, its opponents, whether conventional or terrorist, are justified in also viewing those same civilians as legitimate military targets." That's clearly an opinion. If the opinions expressed in these five sections are held by a significant number of people or are otherwise notable, they should be properly attributed and sourced, and counterarguments given the same treatment. I'll hold off briefly on deleting all of these sections to see if anyone wants to salvage them in that fashion, but in their present form, they're not even close to being acceptable. JamesMLane 06:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Draft as Slavery should be able to survive in some form, but I believe it is incorrect as stated. I think there has been a Supreme Court decision that determined that the draft was constitutional and the slavery issue was specifically argued. If someone can cite this case, it should be sufficient to show that the argument was sufficiently serious to require Supreme Court review. The decision has been critisized for not deciding on the merits but on expediency.--Silverback 08:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes the draft as in violation of the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery has been addressed by the Supreme Ct at least 3 times, here a summary of one, United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1968) ("the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiency, is not limited by either the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency"), cert. denied 391 U.S. 956--Silverback 09:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The Draft as Nationalism should also be able to survive in some form. An internet search reveals much college history course material, talking about the introduction of universal conscription and the rise of nationalism in Prussia, France, Russia and Japan, although the most apropo statement of the case is in this article: "the birth of the nation state was intimately connected to the introduction of universal conscription"--Silverback 10:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any so called duty to serve is rooted in nationalism, not morality"Those who maintain that conscription is based on moral duty find no support in the teachings of the Popes. The trouble has been that Catholics within the several countries, too much influenced by nationalism themselves, have failed to follow, to interpret, and to apply the directives thus given to them by the Vicar of Christ."--Silverback 10:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In a fourth case, Justice Benjamin Cardozo noted that the exemption of conscientious objectors from military service was always an "act of grace" by the state and was never meant to establish "a right of private judgment . . . above the powers and compulsion of the agencies of government."[1] "government has the right to the military service of all its able-bodied citizens, and may, when an emergency arises, justly exact that service from all."Richter v. US, 181 F.2d 591 (1950) at 592-3


Some documention has been installed directly into the page, feel free to add some of the above or elsewhere from here. I will continue this work later tomorrow. It is looking good.--Silverback 10:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree completely with JamesMLane. Recent text does not pass NPOV laugh test. Wolfman 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Silverback, but I don't think it's looking good at all. It's still hugely POV and very US-centric to boot. My suggestions:
  • The "Historical information" heading should be changed, for clarity's sake, to "Countries that do not currently have mandatory military service", for parallelism with the preceding section, because it is again a country-by-country rundown, not a general history.
  • Within that renamed section, "United States" should be added as a subheading. On this particular topic, at least, there's no reason to treat the U.S. as being so important that it gets its own top-level heading. (An article on space travel, by contrast, might reasonably have top-level headings for the US, the USSR/Russia, and "Others", but we don't have that kind of importance in the conscription debate.)
  • Information specific to the U.S., such as changes in the SSS since Vietnam, and the litigation invoking the Thirteenth Amendment, should go in the "United States" subheading.
  • Most of the material in the current section "The Problems of the Draft in the United States" isn't really "problems" and isn't specific to the U.S. It's really "Arguments against any nation imposing conscription anytime anyplace". The article should have a new top-level heading, something like "Arguments for and against conscription" or "Conscription controversy" that would summarize, in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion, the main arguments that have been advanced by both sides in debates over conscription generally, not just the U.S. Even within that frameword, of course, anti-conscription views need to be reported, not espoused as they are now.
If this reorganization seems reasonable to most people, I'll go ahead and do it. JamesMLane 16:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Generally good suggestions; ok by me. I'd go a step further and spawn a sub-article on 'history of conscription in the US'. There is certainly plenty of material for a full article on that, ranging from the draft riots in the civil war to Vietnam to recent bills to re-institute the draft. Wolfman 16:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, I think such a daughter article would be a good idea, but for now I just tried to include the highlights here. JamesMLane 07:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree in general with the suggestions, if there is any material that you think does not currently fall within the suggestions, lets discuss it and see if we can find a place for it. Note, that a lot of the nationalism material above, is actually judicial positions in support of the draft, asserted the government right and the citizens duty. There is a lot more material like this. Of course, this thinking is also support material for the language in the nationalism section.
All the anti-conscription arguments (the five sections I named above) don't belong unless they're attributed. Personally, as someone who opposes conscription, I don't think that the debate is significantly influenced by, for example, the argument that the draft is bad because it encourages terrorism. Stuff like that has no place here unless it's an objectively significant point in terms of who's been arguing that, in which case it should be attributed to an example of a proponent. That you personally think it's an "opinion which can be rigorously and consistently defended and sheds light on the issues" (your phrase on Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) isn't enough, for reasons I discussed there.
Also, the external link about Kerry doesn't belong. Including some kind of service project among the requirements for high school graduation is completely different from conscription as that term is commonly understood and as it's discussed everywhere else in the article. Mandatory jury duty is more like conscription but still wouldn't belong here. JamesMLane

00:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It does belong, it is relevant as a form of non-military conscription, and it also demonstrates the duty/nationalism culture, and perhaps is evidence of the propensity to conscript in the military realm as well. John Kerry's position on this was extensively understood and discussed in this way on his web forums, john deans web forums and among kucinich supporters (I attended a caucus as a kucinich delegate). If you do a search on the internet you will see that that the contemporary understanding of the implications of his position was exactly that at the time. Furthermore, non-military conscription is a subject of this article, witness the conscription of the minors and the japaneses workers. I have also been preparing some more non-military entries, specifically, the conscription in the time of Solomon (sometimes also called a levy or forced labor, but generally referred to as conscription in the commentaries and indicies) to build the temple and to rebuild destroyed cities. Its historical importance is enhanced because Israel revolted because of it. See 1 Kings 7:13,14 9:15,20,21 5:2,3,13-15 9:15-17 12:3-16 This latter covers the revolt.--Silverback 01:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Much of the justification for peace time mandatory or incentivised public service and for the continuation of military conscription in peacetime in European countries, is also educational in nature, because even though unnecessary for military purposes it is for "their own good" and to "instill values".--Silverback 01:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NPOV-section tag added.

[edit] How "encyclopedic" should this article be, in the sense of presenting arguments by both sides in a neutral fashion?

Is the most authoritative encyclopedias, the articles are signed, produced by a person willing and able to do so. Do they always present every side? Since this is a wiki community project, where are the contributers to the pro conscription side? I submit they are the same place as the contributers to the pro side on murder and slavery. Total balance should not have to be achieved, the modern moral consensus has changed, just as it has in slavery. Even mere paternalistic mandates such as Kerry proposed for high school graduation have had to be expunged from his site and hidden, although not outright reversed or rescinded. --Silverback 01:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

in both pro- and anti-conscription sections we should place *opinions* that are held and uttered by the people who hold the pro- and anti- views, right? So, for the anti-conscription part, we could eg. add the statements made by:
1. draft resisters during the Vietnam War era
2. conscripts who refused to fight in the First and Second World Wars from many countries (as Australia, Ireland, Canada, and other countries; there were even some Germans in the Second World War, who resisted draft, see eg. Edelweisspiraten
3. conscripts who fight the draft during the time of peace. There are even examples of the prisoners of conscience, even in Poland (eg. a conscious objector Galuszko, I think his first name is Roman, but I'm not sure) who would rather go to prison than to the military
4. the opinions of the conscious objectors and their organizations, on the pacifist and moral grounds
5. the opinions of anarchists and libertarians (partially covered, for they believe the draft is slavery)
6. the opinions of luminaris and public figures as Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi or Ayn Rand: the very influential people (especially the first two ones)
Please don't blame me that I'm finding the anti-conscription views only; mine own are anti-conscription and I'm going to leave the pro-draft part to other people.
of course some people support conscription. universal military service is quite common in democracies, witness israel, germany, & switzerland. i suspect that several wikipedia editors support it, given the international flavor of the editorship. i personally oppose it in my country. this article is quite clearly intended as an article on the military draft. if you want to start an article on non-military conscription, that would be lovely. it can be linked to from here, but there's no need to hijack this article for write-ups on either a high-school service program, slavery, or jury duty -- even though all those have elements of involuntary servitude in common with the draft. Wolfman 02:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I have moved it there. Although I don't see how the conscript labor in historical times fits in any way under the euphemistic "national service" label. Perhaps conscription should point to military and non-military forms.
Is there a place where we can solicit european editors to document how their nations justify manditory service and the continuation of the military draft in peacetime?--Silverback 03:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not exactly appropriate for Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, which says a page should be listed if it "needs a lot of work". You're talking about only one specific aspect. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Peer review is for "mostly finished articles that need the final checking by peers." This article is too far along for the former but not far enough for the latter! Does anyone else have any ideas? JamesMLane 08:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring article for NPOV

I got partway through the changes I sketched above. There's now a specific subheading for the United States, with two paragraphs about the history and legal challenges. I didn't touch the subsections on "Perception of the Draft as Unfair" and "Selective Service Reforms", which I think need much work. The heavily POV sections are now under the heading "Arguments for and against conscription". Not a single one of them is currently in acceptable form. POV's must be attributed. The Manifesto cited under "The Draft As Slavery" doesn't use the word "slavery", so, at a minimum, the description of the Manifesto would have to be reworded. The statement in the next paragraph that the Thirteenth Amendment issue hasn't been decided by U.S. courts is clearly wrong. The remaining subsections are in even worse shape. I've deliberately left all these subsection headings in improper title case, rather than Wikipedia's standard sentence case, as a flag to indicate the passages that still need fixing. JamesMLane 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to help more with this, but a computer glitch kept me offline for a few hours. On the manifesto/slavery issue, did you notice the sentence "It is a form of servitude.", I thought that was a close synonym.--Silverback 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's close at all. "Slavery" is a much more powerful term. If you thought the two words were close, you could just as well have selected the word that the source actually used. JamesMLane 18:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the two most egregious examples of POV posturing. The remaining ones still have plenty of problems. This article should be reporting arguments about the draft, not making them. Part of the distinction is in attributing an argument to someone specific and notable, with references. Otherwise, it sound like Wikipedia endorses the argument.

[edit] Template

The addition of the template box at the beginning of the article looks very distracting to me. I've seen some articles where such a template box is over to the right, so that it's not confused with the table of contents, but in this instance I think it would be even better just to delete it. The other articles are all linked in this article at the appropriate points, so I don't think the template is particularly useful. JamesMLane 18:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More anti-conscription editorializing

Silverback's latest addition, under "The Draft As Justification for Terrorism", seems to me to be another blatantly POV passage. What is the context of the Brandeis remark? The rest of the addition is a long quotation about "total war" -- the quoted passage doesn't draw the link to conscription, which is a completely different concept. As matters stand, I think the whole section on "Arguments for and against conscription" has a few nuggets of fact that could be retained but about 90% of it should be deleted. JamesMLane 03:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Search on:
"total war" conscription
you will see that the two are intimately related, perhaps there can be limited conscription without total war, but there can't be total war without conscription. If you read the passage, you will see that conscription itself becomes the justification for the incremental steps towards total war. Here is a good documentation of conscription's use as part of the progression.[2]. Perhaps you have some reason for wanting to suppress this information? If you want balance, all you need to do is go to the law books and quote the decisions that legitimized government power to do these things. Perhaps the arguments are persuasive to those in power or to a scared population or who have already sunk to the level of conscription, but we are trying to be objective here. The legal arguments are basically, when there is war the law doesn't matter. Hardly, a "legal" argument or a precedent one would want to apply in other circumstances. --Silverback 12:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Siemes quotation about the atomic bomb is also irrelevant to a discussion of conscription, except in the sense of moral equivalence that Silverback wants to impose that also includes murder and slavery. Conscription isn't murder,
it would be hard to argue that conscription itself _is_ murder, as it would be nearly impossible to argue that prison system is murder. It's like to argue that a torch is an arson, or a picklock is theft, or something like that. Of course, it would make no sense, as they are the tools and not acts that can be committed with them. However, it's absolutely valid to argue that war itself is murder (after all, most of the pacifist movement is based on this premise, isn't it?), and therefore, that conscription means teaching ways to commit murder or makes the conscripts potential murderers.
and it's arguably not slavery either.
arguably ... One could _argue_ that conscription is not slavery, but another one can argue the contrary: that it constitutes, or at least is very similiar to slavery or at least involuntary servitude. After all, in both cases there is a person forced to do some job (work) he (or she) may disagree with and to obey the orders of those that direct this work, and in the case of resistance is being forcibly taken to the place the job is to be done, and severely punished if caught as fugitive (a deserter). Though, I argue that conscription _is_ a form of slavery, even if it's not exactly the chattel slavery. There are many forms of slavery, and some even argue that such things as Wage slavery do exist. I mean _slavery_ in the moral, not legal terms. US Constitution may or may not allow conscription, but it's hardly a source of moralty, only a legal document which is valid in the USA and nowhere else (for example, in Poland, where I live, or in Germany it means nothing). And besides, it allowed slavery as well (before the introduction of the 13th Amendment). What arguments do you have to support the opposite point of view, I mean: that conscription is _not_ slavery or involuntary servitude (in the case a conscript does NOT want to serve). Critto
It certainly isn't bombing civilians, whether with atomic weapons or otherwise.
I agree: conscription _itself_ is not bombing civilians, since its presence doesn't mean that civilians are bombed, as its absence doesn't mean that they aren't (the professional or mercenary army may abuse civilians as well). However, it means making turning civilians into soldiers even against their will; therefore, in the time of war they may become exposed to being bombed and, while not civilians (by the international legal definitions) anymore, one may argue they were deprived of their civilian status by force and that exposing them to being killed equates to endangering civillians. Therefore, the ones arguing that conscription=bombing civilians have some point. Critto
Also, one may argue that conscription makes people accepting the concept of total war, since they become the parts of the war machine themselves, and are being exposed to all forms of war propaganda that soldiers are being taught at trainings and in combat. Critto
The quote is particularly irrelevant in the context of "conscription as justification for terrorism." It's certainly possible to make the argument that the policy of conscription justifies viewing enemy civilians as military targets,
Right, I think it should take such a form. Critto
but I'd prefer to see a quote that supports that argument rather than something about A-bombs. Perhaps a separate section such as "Conscription leads to total war"
I think that such a subsection should be created, especially that similiar statements were made by the people who wrote the cited Manifesto Incl. Albert Einstein) Critto
could include the link Silverback references above, but the Siemes quote remains irrelevant unless we're willing to include the subheading

"Conscription is just like bombing civilians with nuclear weapons." --Khaighle 22:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trim conscription in USA

I am going to trim the conscription#United States section and merge content with the Conscription in the United States article unless I get some good objections. Zeimusu 00:05, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I began that process but got distracted by other projects. My only caveat is that you should be careful to avoid duplicating material that's already in the other article. Furthermore, some material now in this article, like the link to the Pledge of Allegiance, should be trimmed without being added to the other article. JamesMLane 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trimmed. Further edits to both pages probably needed.Zeimusu
I also copied Germany to Conscription in Germany That page needs cleanup. But we are now back under 30Kb! Zeimusu 14:33, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription in Italy

I must inform you that the mandatory military service in Italy is no longer provided. The Italian military army, since January 1, 2005, will be formed just by volunteer, professional forces. Should I delete the paragraph or just update it? Ciao. Angelo.romano 21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion: Add a sentence about what will happen effective January 1. After that date, you or someone else can move the paragraph down to the section of countries that don't have conscription. Even then, I think it would be useful to leave in the summary of what the rules were when Italy had conscription, with the tenses changed, of course. JamesMLane 11:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done. I updated the paragraph with the new conscription rules of Italy. I'll move it for the new year. --Angelo.romano 18:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for and against conscription

Does anyone have a statistic on the number Americans drafted who "dodged" the draft (as both a total number and as a percentage?)

I've rewritten and greatly shortened the section Conscription#Arguments for and against conscription. I've attempted to give equal weight to both sides. Be bold when editing, but please try to be balanced. Zeimusu 01:10, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

You have thrown away a lot of persuasive information for the against side. You failed to notice that while the arguments for conscription are few, deliberative bodies such as courts and representative legislatures have found them persuasive, so balance must not be merely quantitative but qualitative. Besides, you did a poor job, is something so short were to have been proposed, it would use different einstein and gandhi quotes. The section already had achieved a well documented approximate of NPOV, why don't you go work on the "for" side of the murder, slavery and nationalism pages as instead.--Silverback 19:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback writes, "The section already had achieved a well documented approximate of NPOV...." To the contrary, more than one person has noted on this talk page that there were serious problems. To start with one point, I asked a month ago what the context was for Brandeis's remark, "All bets are off." The way this article uses it, it appears that Brandeis was endorsing the argument that conscription is bad because it can be used to justify terrorism. I find that unlikely. The Wikipedia text seems to have uncritically adopted the spin given to the quotation by one anti-conscription author ([3]). In fact, quite a bit of this material is pure anti-conscription spin. For a lengthy discussion about the misuse of the "total war" quotation from Father Siemes, see Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#More anti-conscription POV, continued at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Yet another section about conscription conscription conscription. JamesMLane 20:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that is the sense of the Brandeis quote that you got, then we need to clarify it, he was not justifying terrorism, he was using conscription to justify other hardships and mandates on USA civilians, those things that add up to total war. An expanded statement of his meaning would be, "Since we've already accepted that we can legally impose military discipline and possible loss of life on civilians by forcing them to serve in the military, there are no legal barriers to lesser impositions upon civilians, like rationing, price controls, travel restrictions, reduced legal rights, etc." I provided the reference previously, although I don't have it handy now. You will have to search the reference for the reference to him. As to those who allege that this page is NPOV, I will check the murder and slavery pages to see if they have been consistent. YOu know that this community has not imposed any restrictions on pro-conscription justifications, perhaps because abusive ones haven't been tried yet, but you are welcome to propose some. It is quite possible there is more than one way to view conscription or more than one reason to oppose it, and all can be legitimately documented. If these outnumber, the simplistic authoritarian and paternalistic arguments, that doesn't mean they are right. Let the reader decide based on the quality of the arguments and the values they appeal to. We have not even gotten to indirect ones, such as freedom of speech arguments, equality, negative health effects, etc. --Silverback 22:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Brandeis quotation: I got the sense that it related to terrorism because it's in the first paragraph under the boldfaced headline "The Draft As Justification for Terrorism". The paragraph goes on to ring in the idea of total war, which is different from terrorism, and you've now expanded it above to refer to a legal justification for government abrogation of other rights. In other words, the subject is a hopeless mish-mash. What I know at this point about what Brandeis said is, "All bets are off." That's all. From other references I found online, my best guess is that the quotation had nothing to do with either terrorism or total war. More plausible possible meanings include:
(1) Given that the government has established conscription, the particular further government action at issue in this case (whatever case and whatever action it might have been) is legally permissible.
(2) A draft is bad because it might lead someone to accept the argument that something else is legally permissible that otherwise wouldn't be.
I don't know what you mean about a reference previously provided; I searched this talk page for "Brandeis" and found no such information from anyone.
NPOV: Your statement that "this community has not imposed any restrictions on pro-conscription justifications" is completely false. Opinions pro and con on conscription, murder, slavery, or whatever other red herrings you want to invoke are all subject to the same NPOV rules. One of those rules is: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not." (Wikipedia:No original research#Classifying viewpoints by appropriateness) Despite this policy, you constantly insert your personal opposition to conscription and go way beyond what the sources say. Silverback, I'm going to say it and italicize it again (from Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki): Wikipedia is not the place for you to carry on your crusade against conscription. Your opinion about conscription is not notable. We are not going to quote Brandeis or anyone else on the basis of what you think he "probably" meant (what you said about Father Siemes) or how you would like to see his meaning "expanded". If you want to make the argument that the draft is bad because it somehow either facilitates or legitimizes terrorism, you're going to have to demonstrate that that argument is important enough outside of Wikipedia to justify its inclusion in an encycylopedic summary. The criterion is whether the "viewpoint is held by a significant minority". If it is, cite a source. I don't feel like repeating everything I already said at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 1#Historical justification and criticism vs revisionist justification and criticism. JamesMLane 23:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I meant the community of this page, all community is local, it is the way wiki works in practice if not in wikipedia principle. Here is the context of the Brandeis quote, from the site you already referenced, but denigrated, despite it's careful documentation of sources:
"The connection of the draft with these official subversions of the Constitution was hardly coincidental; it was direct, intentional, and publicly acknowledged. Consider the statement of a contemporary legal authority, Professor John Henry Wigmore:"'
"Where a nation has definitely committed itself to a foreign war, all principles of normal internal order may be suspended. As property may be taken and corporal service may be conscripted, so liberty of speech may be limited or suppressed, so far as deemed needful for the successful conduct of the war . . . all rights of the individual, and all internal civic interests, become subordinated to the national right in the struggle for national life.8"
"The formula, applied again and again, was quite simple: If it is acceptable to draft men, then it is acceptable to do X, where X is any government violation of individual rights whatsoever. Once the draft had been been adopted, then, as Justice Louis Brandeis put it, “all bets are off.” "
The source of the Brandeis quote is footnoted in that research article.
If you will read the slavery page, you will see it take note that there are no modern moral justifications for slavery. We are approaching a similar time for conscription. Notice that very few "moral" arguments have been put forward for conscription and they are of a weak and dubious nature, variants on the education argument are the only ones, the others are more practical arguments of necessity and are also dubious, because they are usually only necessary because the opponent is also conscripting, conscription justifying conscription.
Are we doing to start requiring multiple sources for each point made or only accepted peer reviewed sources? Let each person here, look to their own posts and see if they want to be held to the same standard. Based on the "good faith" principle, we accept many additions without any references, assuming for instance that a hungarian or thai knows something about conscription in their country based merely on common knowledge of their culture. You want to cover for your inability to provide a moral justification for the sovereign perogatives of nations, by instead subtracting from the substantial good faith efforts of the community on this page.--Silverback 23:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, first note that my point of view is strongly anti-conscription. I consider it to be a reprehensible for a nation to force it's own citizens to fight against their will. Be that as it may, This section does not present a neutral point of view. It should therefore be edited. It contains two straw-man arguments for conscription, both refuted then several long paragraphs explaining the case against conscription. It does not even include the principal argument for peace-time conscription, national defence. I am going to have another go at this, taking this discussion into account, but now is not the time. But why don't you edit this section for a more balanced point of view? Baby awakes, byeZeimusu 05:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
How can you call education a straw man argument? Do your really think Germany conscripts for "defense", where is the threat? The argument may be a poor justification for confinement and torture, but apparently some people find it persuasive and that should be discussed. On the non-military front, Sen. Kerry proposed mandatory public service for high school graduation, and Sen. Kennedy back in the 70s proposed a mandatory national service program, ostensibly these were susposed to promote citizen ship values, education of sorts. You are welcome to add "national defense" as a justification, may I suggest Israel as an embattled example. Does Israel have a right to survive that supercedes that of the individual? Perhaps although you personally oppose it, you can put forward the hegelian/fascist notion that the state is an organic entity with a higher collective purpose and embodies the spiritual reality of the people as a whole, rather than an institution to protect individual rights (I paraphrase the Encyclopedia of Philosophy here). You will find that we are open to efforts to flesh out the justification for conscription here, but if you can't find enough substance to make it neutral, perhaps we should aim for the "neutrality" of the slavery and murder articles.--Silverback 09:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put the NPOV tag back, as my concerns about the neutrality of this section have not yet been addressed.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of the many violations of the NPOV policy in this article, one of the most flagrant is this paragraph:

These examples clearly demonstrate that military draft can be and has been abused to serve economic aims by way of slave labour and this process inevitably demolishes the society and the economy.

It was removed by an anon but promptly restored by Silverback. The paragraph represents one point of view. Even to present it as a "Some have argued" type point would be poor, because of the lack of attribution of the opinion. To state it as a flat-out fact, however, is quite unencylopedic. I'm removing it. Anyone who wants to restore the thought is welcome to do so, provided it's properly attributed. This passage from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is applicable:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Of course, this one small change only begins to address the POV problems of this article. I focus on it only because I noticed the anon's perfectly correct removal of it -- without an entry on the talk page but with a sufficient justification provided in the edit summary -- and the prompt reversion of the anon's edit. JamesMLane 01:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies. I'm the anon who initially deleted the last paragraph; I believed that an encyclopedia is really not a good place for a "conclusion" to be stated. My belief is that Wikipedia should state facts, not opinions. Again, I apologize for my lack of earlier statement. 4.11.203.88 10:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have nothing to apologize for. The material you removed was manifestly improper. You could be faulted only for leaving in so much other improper material, but I also haven't had time to address the rampant POV in this article. JamesMLane 22:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries with no conscription

Here is a list from a WRI report dated 2004 and an older one from the UN Commission on Human Rights dated 1997. Can such a list be added without making the page enormous? It may be easy to check the conscription status of some of the countries (e.g. Japan, South Africa, India, New Zealand, Malta, Pakistan) but very difficult to back it with official online references. Any ideas? --Skopiestelos 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries with and without mandatory military service

The United States is currently listed as "Conscription: No". I find this patently absurd, considering that conscription has been instated four times in the lifetimes of many currently living US Citizens, if you include the World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--five times, if you consider the 1980 re-instatement of mandatory registration with the Selective Service System as being equivalent. Even more absurd is the current paragraph under the heading "Invention of Modern Conscription", which purports that conscription is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future in the United States, especially given the fact that we are now engaged in another pseudo-war which has, as of this date, lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. --ampermc 04:03 UTC, 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:05:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Arguments for conscription

Some Wikipedians have asked for arguments for conscription. I post them here in order to submit them for neutral discussion. Well combined with the points stated above, they should make the page itself less POV. As a citizen of Finland (which is easily deduced from my WHOIS information), one of the last Western democracies to use almost universal male conscription, and having served as a conscript, I am personally aquainted with the topic.

The types defence forces can be grossly divided into three systems: regular armies, cadre systems and militia systems. The USA, Great Britain and most other NATO countries have regular armies. In such army, the units are organized of professionals and a major part of the fighting force is always at the service. Typically, the peace time units are immediately deployable and the full mobilization only complements them. Almost all armies before the French revolution followed this model. The pros for this kind of army are clear: you have a combat ready strike force that is politically easy to deploy. The con is the expense of such force. A small nation cannot support a force much larger than a hundred thousand soldiers.

The cadre system consists of a small cadre of career soldiers and a large reserve of reservists. The conscripts form the active component of the army and are trained by the cadre of officers and NCOs who occupy the key command positions and positions requiring special technical skills (e.g. pilots). The conscripts train for the wartime duties and after completed training, are demobilized. If needed, the service time can be made somewhat longer than actually used for the training to provide the nation with a force of fully trained conscripts to give protection against surprise attacks. In the time of national emergency, the nation enters total war, and the army can be expanded even over ten-fold. Most NCO and officer duties of the war time defence force are undertaken by trained reservists who, which should present no problem, as also the most talented citizen are part of the reserve. The main advantage of the system is that the country can have a low defence budget and still retain a large army. It is also very difficult to use such a defence force except in a grave emergency where wide political support can be found. However, the cost of weaponry has risen to such an extent that it is becoming the limiting factor for the size of the defence force, instead of national man power. The weak point of the cadre system is the mobilization. It takes usually a few days and means total restructuring of the force. All peace time units are either disbanded or change form and a abundance of new units are formed. It will take a time span from one day to two weeks to form a combat ready unit, depending of the training level of the reservists.

The militia system is the on used in Switzerland and can be considered the ultimate model of a citizen army. I believe it has been discussed elsewhere.

The viewpoint raised by Silverback and others is that the nation has no higher right to exist than the individual. This is a sound argument. However, if approached from the viewpoint of game theory, it can be argued that the conscription is not immoral. The chance to die in a war is actually quite low, of the order of 1 %. On the contrary, if the alternative is the near-total obliteration of the nation, as happened for example to the Jews or the Chechens in the 1940s, the chance to die in the war becomes actually much lower than in the case of not fighting. In such case, it is reasonable for anyone concerned to fight, and to ensure oneself that everyone else is also fighting. Similarly, many other infringments of peace-time rights, e.g. rationing, can be carried out, as these enhance the average chance of survival. However, great care must be taken to insure that the country defending itself does not permanently destroy its free lifestyle and democracy. (This has been accomplished, for instance in Great Britain during WWII.) I hope I have established above, that a small country has no way to defend itself against a wide-scale attack of a major power, unless it has conscription. However, the fundamental axiom of rationale can be questioned. It is quite possible that there is no realizable threat to the nation. For example, it is hard to imagine any country making large scale invasion to the USA with a purpose of destroying a large part of its civilian inhabitants. However, many countries, e.g. Israel, have such an underlying fear which may or may not be rationally founded.

The final reason for the conscription and the concept of total war is the deterrent of "one-sided destruction". If we consider the possible enemy capable to act rationally, its reasons to invade are based on solid analysis of objectives. For example, a major power may wish the natural resources, key infrastructure or strategic points in the country. It will invade if the political, human, and economical costs are outweighed by possibilities of same forms of income. Most attacks can be deterred if country credibly accepts the doctrine of total war. Even after defeating the country, the enemy will have to quell to guerilla resistance, which may go on for years, and rebuild the infrastructure, which will have been totally destroyed in the fighting. In short, the majority of the nation deters the enemy by a credible collective suicide threat, which requires certain amount of fanatic nationalism. This is the main disadvantage of such a strategy.

The conscription has also a few minor advantages among which is the chance to physically educate the youths of the nation, thus lowering future social expenses. The conscripts, who form a good outline of the whole nation, also present the military with good opportunity to recruit its cadre from among the most talented. Of course, there is also the point of indoctrination, which is ambivalent but can, to my view, be used also constructively.

To get a good outline of the idea of total war, please see the Emergency Powers Act which outlines the reserve powers for crises other than war. For the war, the following also applies, but is only in Finnish and Swedish Act on the State of Defence In Finnish. --130.230.131.108 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have this article augmented by presentation of some pro-conscription arguments. I want to mention one problem, though. One of the reasons I'm unhappy with much of the anti-conscription material that Silverback has inserted, here and elsewhere, is that it's opinion (which is OK) but isn't properly sourced or attributed (which is not OK). For example, in what you wrote above, the point about game theory is an interesting one. We shouldn't just put it in the article as a bare assertion, though. If the argument has been made by some notable spokesperson, then we should attribute it to that person, with a citation (a hyperlink or a reference to a printed source). If the game theory argument is nothing more than you telling us what occurs to you, personally, as a reason to oppose conscription, then, in my opinion, it doesn't belong in the article. JamesMLane 15:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

i want to suggest a further pro-conscription argument, that is that a country that has in peacetime a largely conscript army is less prone an likely to go to war due to the fact that the army would be comprised from children of all classes including the rulling classes and the people who make decissions, were as a fully professional army would be almost entirely be comprised of members and children of the poorer classes whose fate is less likely to be taken under consideration by the ruling classes whose children would be safe.

I would apreciate it if someone would try to formulate this idea properly and place it in the list of pro-conscription arguments, that is ofcourse if they find it to be reasonable as i believe it is the case.

thank you 88.218.38.140 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the strongest argument for conscription is "equality of sacrifice". That is, the argument that in a prolonged war with high casualty rates your armed forces should be selected in a fair and equitable fashion, rather than (say) recruited from the unemployed and the poor (which may introduce a racial bias too). I think this is one motivation for some people on the left calling for the draft at present. Put it this way - at the moment we can more or less ignore the Iraq war (other than a quick look at the news headlines, then back to playing on the internet) unless we happen to have a professional soldier as a relative or friend. Now with the draft, all of us have to face the possibility that we, or people we know and love, may find ourselves drafted. That means that the government has to be very sure that the public actually support the war. If it can't be sure of that, and thinks it will lose the war without conscription - then it has to think about whether the war is worth fighting. A country with a professional army can fight small wars without the general public even noticing.

Exile 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very US-centric argument, though, and only applies to countries which regularily fight wars; it doesn't apply at all in Europe, for instance, where even those countries who have conscription only ever send professional soldiers on UN or EU missions; Austria, for instance, only employes conscriptees in disaster relief and similar interior maneuvers. —Nightstallion (?) 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The POV reaches the point of absurdity

The only reason to boldface the word "only" in the discussion of Arver is to convey Silverback's disagreement with the decision. A properly NPOV presentation would simply say that Arver rejected the Thirteenth Amendment argument. What we have here is blatantly POV, as well as being too much detail for the general article; specifics about American law should be left to the U.S. article. JamesMLane 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, the only is the emphasize the amazing fact that there was only ONE sentence of discussion, legal, nationalist or otherwise of the legal merits of the thirteenth amendment servitude argument. I've no problem with the discussion being left to the US article. But in that case there should be no reference to this decision in the slavery portion of this article, as if this decision was relevant.--Silverback 18:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
You make my point for me. The purpose of boldfacing "only" is to "emphasize" a fact that you personally find "amazing" -- and, also, that you want to emphasize because you think it undercuts the Court's ruling, so that the emphasis promotes the POV that you want to promote. Speaking as an attorney, I don't think this fact is "amazing" at all. The Court doesn't go into full detail in addressing every argument that the lawyers toss out. If the Justices think the argument raises an important issue, or that explaining their rejection of it will clarify something for litigants and judges in future cases, it will get more attention. If the argument is regarded as crackpottery, it doesn't. As for the scope of this article, the whole section should at least be renamed and possibly deleted altogether. It's in here only because you think the draft is the equivalent of slavery and you do everything you can to promote that view. The objective importance of the argument is minimal. If the subject is covered, the simple statement of fact that it was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court would be adequate, without either explaining or attacking the Court's reasoning. JamesMLane 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The emphasis on "only", while you interpret it as POV, also carries information, the assumption of most readers would be that the statement was just the conclusion, the emphasis, and the defensibility of that emphasis, makes the factual point that the quoted statement, is the total sum of legal argument and consideration given to the point. Also, I am not the only person who thinks the draft is slavery, obviously the person who brought the case also thought so, as do libertarians, moral authorities such as Ghandi, etc. do also. The, quote has more information content than the "simple statement of fact" that the court rejected it. The quote allows the reader to see the obvious, that the court's conceptual ability was limited by their nationalist and statist bias, as they plainly state in slightly more flowery words.--Silverback 19:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
You're saying that "only" carries information that's not carried by "only". Indeed it does. It carries the information that one Wikipedia editor thinks this point is really really important because it seems to him to support his POV. The emphasis on the point is particularly dubious given that it doesn't even belong in the article at all. JamesMLane 10:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As usual, I am open to compromise. I also mentioned that it wasn't needed in this article. But if this case is to be cited as finding the draft not in conflict with the amendment that ended slavery, this statement is also necessary to show that the "legal" reasoning and deliberation the court accorded the issue. The paucity of deliberation is perhaps explained by their admission of limited conceptual ability.
While we are at it, I reverted an addition claiming due process grounds for the draft being unconstitutional, perhaps unfairly. Do you know if such grounds have been proposed and/or ruled upon? -- thanx --Silverback 10:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

There have been several requests to try to organize Category Military since it has over 50 articles and over 50 sub-categories. I am trying to help out, by adding a new sub-category Politics about Military, which will include this, and other articles about the sometimes controversial nature of how people get recruited into the military, such as child soldiers, also issues of gender, different religions side by side, conscientious objector and so forth.

In consequence of my edits, the hierarchy becomes War / Military / Politics about Military / Conscription.

AlMac|(talk) 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand

I am not certain about this, but as I remember from some Thais who were in one of my classes last year, in Thailand you have a choice of serving a short term in the army, I don't know the length, or drawing a ball out of a container and if it is one colour you have to serve in the Thai army for a longer period of time, but if it is the other colour you don't have to serve in the army. I believe this qualifies as conscription (though selective), but I am not sure of it or know any details. So if anyone can confirm it or give any details, this could be added to the article.say1988 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

There any verification for the more unusuall comments about Iraqs past conscription? Thanx 69.142.2.68 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] draft evadees

draft evadees seems a bit too general

[edit] Venezuela

Forced conscription was abolished in Venezuela (1999 constitution) http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm article 134 JRSP

[edit] Eritrea

I don't have any information on Eritrea, but I noticed the following sentence: "The Eritrean government is well-known for hunting down and torturing suspected draft evaders". While this may be perfectly true, I suspect it would require at least a citation, otherwise it's simply an opinion. / Mario, February 16, 2005

Having lived in the region for ten years I believe it's true that conscription - and the reality of having to fight in a sometimes viscous war - has been one reason why many Eritreans do move to neighbouring countries. And indeed, the Eritrean government does pursue dodgers but to say they are well known for torturing draft evaders is not true, in my opinion. I'd leave it out. --Tatty 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIS or Russia

IF the Russian military is in as bad as the Russian Generals claim, someone with 20,000 boy scouts can take the place over. I suspect this is a propaganda ploy for someone to try that. I grew up during the time Russia was the USSR and could make the rest of the planet kow-tow to them, except NATO and allies. Martial Law 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)


I would say that the Russian military is generally much worse then the generals claim in terms of both conditions for conscripts and fighting ability (as Chechnya had illustrated for the last ten years). And I believe they (the generals) have only themselves to blame. They had been too slow in finding inefficiencies, and it was on their watch that the corruption levels in the military skyrocketed. No wonder most sane Russians are trying to escape the service by whatever means possible. Having been deemed fit for service while drawing a disability pension I have to say that even if conscripted army might be considered a good thing, the current execution of the idea in Russia nullifies most of the positive arguments. Maximpbar 18:39, 19 May 2006

I believe that one of the problems in this article is that it fails to address the diversity of the conscript armies. A conscription system enjoying popular support and with a professional cadre can work quite well if it addresses the problems of varying abilities and gives the soldiers duties fit for them. The shortness of training is not really a problem, as the military duties are not as difficult as the defenders of an all-volunteer army boast. (This I say with my experience as a conscript private, NCO student, officer student, and officer cadet) On the other hand, lacking even one of these factors, a conscript army cannot function. Especially building an army only during a crises forces worse training than that of the peace-time, which might explain the American trauma with conscription. Thus we can have a well-working US Army of the World War II, the modern Finnish or Israeli Defence Force, and the poor Russian army, all with conscription but with widely differing morale and effectiveness.--MPorciusCato 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

"Such an offense, legally considered an offense of "bad moral character", prevents the "unpatriotic" citizen from ever holding public office."

This isn't NPOV at all is it? And yes I realize that they're in quotes but that still looks like it's favoring the conscriptors.

[edit] Conscripts and prolonged wars

Contrary to popular opinion, prolonged wars of aggression can and will be waged with conscript armies. Both of the World Wars is a proof of this. Almost all forces which participated on both world wars had conscription armies, and all totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and USSR, have always relied on conscription. The only question is about indoctrination, maintaining discipline and economy, not whether the army is made up of volunteers or conscripts. Of course, disciplinary problems may prove grave, and it is estimated some 5% of all Soviet losses in WWII were executions.

You might say that the Afghanistan war was an important factor contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, World War II enjoyed wide popular support at least in all major Allied countries, making the population better able to withstand losses. --MPorciusCato 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conscription as a major supply of armed forces

Somehow, it seems amazing from a social science standpoint how the most impoverished or wrecked of nations can raise immense armies within such a short time, within a span of a decade. I have tried to start further development of the subject at military recruitment (whose focus is primarily voluntary recruitment) but I am interested in the scope here as well, as well as development of strength, or whether the military happens to suddenly increase many times in size, etc. Slightly OR contributed I started, but it was to get the ball rolling. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new article from this one

The size of the article is 75kb, and the Countries with mandatory military service (partial list) itself is 30kb. Maybe we can make that into its own article. Skinnyweed 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible POV in the "political and moral motivations" for conscription

I removed the NPOV tag which was not founded on discussion here. According to my view, the moral statements made in the section are not meant to be encompassing but to relate the POVs reported. I really tried to rewrite them without using the word "should" but this would require much longer expression. The worldviews reported in the section are not compatible with most Wikipedians, but they do exist. The support for conscription can be founded even on the Western philosophical tradition, not only on the Eastern. For example, Rousseau and Hegel with their followers strongly believed in conscription. Of course, the mainstream of Western thought is at the present against conscription, but these views are reported in the section, "Arguments against C". The section tagged was in the part "Arguments for C". In my view, an NPOV approach requires that this section honestly reports those arguments without trying to disqualify them immediately. --MPorciusCato 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] updating map

Montenegro,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Venezuela,Afghanistan and Iraq don't have conscription any more.Bulgaria will end conscription in less then 3 years.

[edit] Draft versus Universal Service

The opening paragraphs don't mention the distinction between a draft -- where some people (or some men, depending) of military age are conscripted but others aren't -- and universal military service, where everyone is conscripted when they reach a certain age. Since many of the pros and cons of conscription depend on which model of conscription you're thinking of, I think this is an important distinction that ought to be made up front. Glaurung quena 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That is true in a sense, but no nation has ever attempted truly universal conscription. The medically incapable persons have always been exempted from service, although the distinction of "incapable" may have been very strictly drawn. Also the diferences between conscription systems should be discussed. The formation and use of reserve is particularly important: is the demobilized conscript positioned in reserve with a future war-time use or would only the active conscripts be used in a war? --MPorciusCato 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics - under arguments for Conscription.

"The cost to benefit ratio of conscription during war time is also debatable. As technology improves, the necessity of a soldier on the battlefield becomes less and less necessary. Superior technology, not superior numbers, has become the deciding factor in war. The cost to train, equip, and care for a poorly trained conscript does not justify the contribution (if any) he or she makes to the armed forces."

This is not fact. Look to recent wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. etc. These countries all were (are) subject to technologically superior enemies. Proving that it is very much possible to fight a war with old weapons and basic traning. Look to Afghanistan, they use ak-47 and rpgs, yet NATO are experiencing great difficulty taking them down. For a small country, conscription can be useful to make a technologically superior enemy suffer great economic losses... 1 black hawk is how many million dollars? How many billions did the US spend in Iraq? This is not even mentioning Vietnam. For a small country, advanced technological warfare is even harder due to (most likely) less funding and numbers. If the goal of the enemy is to take control of a country, then they must step on the ground, they must move amongst the citicents. However, if the militia and the population look the same, if not are the same. What do you do? you cannot see or find you enemy, or is everyone your enemy, and you are really surounded? They cannot control a nation without public support/acceptance and if one quarter of the inhabitants are trained in military combat, that's gonna be hard to get if there is a strong national feeling.


Sincerly, Martin.

[edit] Notable conscripts

I suggest this subsection be deleted. Listing only Muhammed Ali (who didn't actually serve) and Elvis is ridiculous. On the other hand, listing all notable persons who have been conscripts would create a prohibitively long list. For example, it would include most European notables of the 19th century and most U.S. politicians who served in Vietnam, Korea or in the world wars. We might as well compose a list of people who have been vaccinated. --MPorciusCato 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link to Machiavelli

The link to Maciavelli does not seem to contain the text referenced in the link description. 65.198.133.254 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS talk 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

VS talk has removed an external link to a website which I publish containing information and on Draft Resistance and the Vietnam War in Australia. I believe this link is still relevant to the article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the link to the article myself unless it has been discussed on this page. Other editors are free to post the link if they think it is relevant.--Takver 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feminism

"While it is frequently pointed out that feminists and others calling for more equal treatment of women in society have rarely extended their demands to include equality for women regarding the draft, it should be noted that many such persons are also opposed to war in general."


"it should be noted such persons are...." it should be noted? where? Unless someone can give scourced statistics that feminists are significantly more opposed to "war in general" than the average person I'm going to delete that.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.142.183 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

The first part of the sentence (the implied criticism of feminists) is similarly unsourced. The sentence has been tagged "citation needed" for more than two weeks, with no result. If this point is indeed "frequently pointed out" then it should've been possible for the author to cite someone who pointed it out. The comment is also very broad-brush; some countries do draft women, and some have no feminist movement that's in a position to do much about influencing government policy. I agree with the anon's deletion of the implicit defense of feminists, but on the same grounds I'm deleting the implicit attack. JamesMLane t c 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say you're probably correct there too..... 69.158.142.183 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German GDP

Germany's GDP is just a little higher than Swaziland's GDP and more than ten times smaller than the one of Slovenia? I somehow doubt that :D

The figure for Germany was copied incorrectly from the cited source. I've corrected it. I did so with misgivings, however, because I'm not convinced that this chart belongs in the article at all. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

Not even a word about Poland? A big shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.198.237 (talk • contribs)

In Poland, Conscription is enshrined in art. 92 of the Constitution, which states: "1. It shall be the sacred duty of every citizen to defend the homeland. 2. Military service shall be an honourable patriotic duty of the citizens of the Republic of Poland." See http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/archive/poland.htm

Perhaps yet another "List of" article is called for here — List of conscription policy by country. OTOH, perhaps not. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Discipline.

For armies to be effective, personnel discipline is required. True? --Garzj019 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal discipline is needed among military persons in order for the military to function smoothly, as it is needed as among civilians in order for civilian society to function smoothly. In the military and in civilian societies, some tools for imposing discipline on personnel exist. One of the main goals of these personnel discipline tools is to instill some measure of personal discipline in personnel who lack it. -- Boracay Bill 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, all must know the difference between the verb, "to discipline," and the adjective,"disciplined." One is the imposing of punishment upon those lacking self-control, and the other is one who can control himself. --Garzj019 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining reversion of edit describing government of turkey as "parliamentary democracy"

I reverted "parliamentary democracy" to "democracy" for the following reasons, which I explain here because the explanation is too long to fit in an edit summary:

  1. The description as "democracy" is attributed to a source which used that description.
  2. For purposes of this table "democracy" is defined as "state in which democratic structures provide for an alternance of power". That is explained in a note below the table, and the source of that definition is cited in that note. -- Boracay Bill 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist comments

Someone wrote "In Canada, during both of the World Wars, most French from Quebec didn't want to fight in the wars. So, 98% of them evaded this by reporting sick."

This is totally racist and unacceptable, with no sources at all to prove that ridiculous anti-Québec claim. First, Francophones are called Québécois, French-Canadians or Quebecers, not French. Secondly, Québécois fought like everybody else in Canada, and suffered casualities like everybody else. While opposition to the war was high in Québec (by the time of the conscription, opposition to the war was quite high in the rest of Canada as well) Québécois did their military services like everybody else, with only a few cases of people mutilating themselves to avoid conscription. Also, I removed the part about Prairie farmers shooting their sons' toes, as I suspect there isn't any sources proving that either and that it is just another racist comment, making it seem like it was a wide-spread method to avoid conscription while in fact there was only a few rare cases of it happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.156.183 (talk) 04:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercenaries

An IP tried to add the point: "Mercenaries also do not enjoy the status of prisoner-of-war in Geneva convention during the wartime, but may face summary execution as common criminals." While the first part is correct, the latter part is incorrect. The Geneva conventions expressly prohibit summary executions of any person, whether they are combatants or not. A person detained by an armed force, has the right to have his status defined by a competent tribunal. After being defined non-combatant, such as a mercenary, the person may be tried for crimes he has committed in the court which has jurisdiction over the matter. Any violent act made by a non-combatant is viewed as a common crime, not as an act of war, while a combatant has immunity for acts of war he has undertaken while pursuing hostilities against the enemy, unless those acts break the laws of war. For example, charges of espionage, murder, attempted murder and assault apply to non-combatants but not to combatants. In many countries, such crimes carry capital punishment but for example in most European countries, a mercenary would face only life imprisonment, as those countries have renounced even the war-time capital punishment. --MPorciusCato 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed ht e"Pre-modern History Section

It didn't reference any sources at all, and I deemed it to be superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.26.163 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General POV

The general POV in this article seems to be anti-conscription (which does actually have quite a few good points). Also, specifically in the arguments for and against conscription, refutations (sometimes unfounded) are provided for all the arguments for consciption, and in none of the aguments against conscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.226.249 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

completely agree... the history of this entry is a disaster (see the above discussions) that seemed to stem from a personal crusade. It is an endless battle to keep people on track that wiki is an *encyclopedic work*. The freedom of it inevitably attracts idealogues and zealots of all kinds and it is very hard to stay on top of it. I considered trying to rewrite some of the "arguments" sections, but its just too difficult and I dont have the time. This is a very poor entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.23 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above IP users. The article is very biased against the conscription and the "Arguments" section is full of uncited points. In addition, the conscription systems in use throughout the world differ widely. Thus, an argument applicable in one country may be quite inappropriate in another. Writing the arguments in a balanced way requires a large, concentrated effort. --MPorciusCato (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have something more specific to go on here. How about using {{POV-statement}} tags? CKCortez (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did I read that right?

"... although they might then be drafted for non-combat work, such as serving as a combat medic."

Am I the only person who thinks that that state is a little, well, contradictory? Come on, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.217.138 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This sentence seems inconsistent, but it is not. "Non-combat" means duties where you do not have to actually cause harm to an enemy, although you may support the overall armed effort. Medic duty is a great example. The medic only tries to save the lives of wounded fellow and enemy soldiers, non-partially, as required by Geneva Conventions. If the medic carries a weapon, it may be used only for self-defence, and a conscientious objector will probably refrain from carrying a weapon. On the other hand, we use the word "combat medic" to describe a medic assigned to a combat unit, where he will be under active enemy fire. So, basically, you could not have a worse assignment: being under fire, revealing yourself to the enemy while working with the patients, but being uite unable to return fire. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A footnote to that effect citing a supporting source would probably be a good addition to the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As the explanation offered above only stems from my personal understanding on how word "combat" is used in the English language, and from my personal knowledge of unarmed military service as arranged in Finland, I am unfortunately unable to provide a source. (As far as I know, there is a similar class of non-combat conscientious objectors in the US armed forces.) Therefore, I do not edit the article on this point. --MPorciusCato (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country GDP's

I noticed that the GDP's for the countries Malta and Moldova seem unusually high... 5 trillion and 2 trillion respectively. These should be aligned with the main article GDP numbers of the respective country. A cross reference of all the countries GDP may be necessary. Should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groz2065 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US non-volunteer??

Another serious POV issue is questioning if the US volunteer military "is really volunteer?" This is ludicrous. If I had more time, I would pull up the published statistics. The US military is more educated than the US population ON ALL LEVELS. It has more high schools grads, more college grads, and more graduate school grads, percentage wise, than the rest of the population. Then the argument that they join the military because they are destitute and have no other option means the rest of the population must also not have a chance...considering we've got around a 5% unemployment rate, I find this hard to believe.

There is a difference between choosing to join to further your education, serve your country, or simply be a professional soldier and being forced to. The POV here is that no one wants to be a soldier/sailor and that it is a last choice.

While my input is rather anecdotal, ever single person (except me, a civilian my whole life) in my office has a graduate degree, makes six figures, and is either retired or reserve military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forms of government

In the Countries with and without mandatory military service section of the article, the table, which is a rip-off from the source webpage, lists out the conscription in the countries as well as the form of government. I feel that the form of government "pseudo-democracy" is POV. Even when a state has democratic structures but without a real chance for an alternance of power, it is nevertheless a democracy. For my country, Malaysia, one may argue that it is a "federal pseudo-democracy", but the people still have the say in politics and go to the polls every five years. It is just that the people keep voting the same party into power. Furthermore, this article is about conscription, so I don't think that land area, GDP, population and form of government must be included here. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that land area, population and GDP are important. The choice between conscription and professional army is usually based on the overall military strategy of the nation. In such calculation, the resources available and the land area to be defended are very important. For example, my country, Finland, chooses to practice conscription because it has a large land area and low population. Any calculation of the size of an eventual professional army results in circa 50 000 men, yet our neighboring country has at all times several hundred thousand men in bases close to our border. --MPorciusCato (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pseudo-democracy?

This term is used in the table. There is no official term pseudo-democracy. IMo it is OK to use vague terms in newspapers rants but not in encyclopedia. The term must be replaced by official one. e.g., Singapore is parliamentary republic rather than "pseudo". BTW, after some thought, the term "democracy" must go out of the table as well and official form of gov't used instead. Laudak (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "official term" ("official" in terms of what officiating organization?) but, as explained table footnote "f", that term is a term used by the cited supporting source of the info in the "Government" column of the table, and is defined by that source as: "Pseudo-Democracy: state in which there are democratic structures but without a real chance for an alternance of power". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that we have a rather good evidence of controversy. For us Westeners, calling Singapore a "pseudo-democracy" is non-controversial. However, I can accept that a significant number of Singaporeans, Malaysians etc. sincerely call their countries democracies. In Wikipedia, the Western view does not have any precedence. Thus, the cited source is just an opinion of the mainstream Western political thought. It must be presented, with compassion, but so must any other notable view. On the other hand, calling Singapore a "republic" should be non-controversial, because that is the official form of government defined in her constitution. --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This WP article is not asserting that Singapore is a "pseudo-democracy". This WP article is reporting the verifiable fact that the cited source does make this assertion. If Verifiable, reliably-reported contrary assertions relating to this particular case exist, the article should report those assertions with appropriate citations of relevant supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is not the place to list all notable opinions on the form of government for a particular country. The issue whether the term "pseudo-democracy" is the best description of Singapore must be resolved in the Singapore article (and not in other articles which merely list Singapore). And this decision must be entered into the infobox for this country and re-used in wikipedia elsewhere. This is a very evident way to ensure consistency within wikipedia. Laudak (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the government forms listed here are pretty arbitrary. Who decides if a democracy is 'pseudo'? Is it one where the ballots are too complex for the voters to understand and where the courts get to override the voters decisions (anyone guess who I'm talking about?). Why does the UK get 'constitutional monarchy' rather than 'democracy', and why does the US get 'democracy' rather than 'constitutional republic'? Is Cuba more 'dictatorial' than Iran? Some of this stuff seems to have been made up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationmaster.org discussion

"This stuff" is taken from a single source, NationMaster and hence reflects the opinion of the owner of this website. As I said above, the only place where the decision must be made is the wikipedia page about the country, where all sides come to balanced opinion. An addition problem with this classification is that it may change over time. And again, the only place where these changes may be correctly and timely updated is the article about the country. The remaining wikipedia articles must be kept in sync with it in this aspect. Laudak (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nationmaster describes itself as "a vast compilation of data from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, UN, and OECD." The description appears to be accurate, and the site doesn't appear to be a POV-pusher.
The domain's registrant is an organization named Rapid Intelligence their About us page describes Nationmaster thusly: "Our flagship site NationMaster was launched in January 2003. At that time, it was a collection of around two hundred statistics together with the tools to graph and compare them, compiled and built by Luke himself. By 2004 NationMaster had grown to become the world's largest online database of statistical comparisons between countries, and had attracted enthusiastic reviews from such sources as CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC."
Nationmaster's Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country page (under discussion here) does appear to have a potential acceptability problem as a supporting source in WP, though. That Nationmaster page cites the source of its data as electionworld.org, and Electionworld.org says, "Electionworld is transferring its content to the Politics section of Wikipedia. Electionworld was for long time a comprehensive database on elections. The development of the political parts of Wikipedia made it possible to move the content of Electionworld to Wikipedia. It will be a rather long process, but will result in a more comprehensive database for information on elections and political parties. The advantage of Wikipedia over Electionworld is that more people, also you, can contribute to the content." The problem is that Wikipedia's verifiability policy says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." It doesn't appear that the Nationmaster page under discussion here currently uses Articles and posts on Wikipedia as the source of its information, but this situation should probably be looked into. I have asked about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electionworld.org, used by Nationmaster.com -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this, I noticed that the Nationmaster Government Statistics > Government type (most recent) by country page uses the CIA World Factbook as its source and that, in particular, it reports "parliamentary republic" for Singapore. This Government type table seems to be a more appropriate source than the government status page currently used. I'll edit the article to use that info and cite that source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)