Talk:Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Multiple Page Amendments Suggestion

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

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

[edit] Early Militaries

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

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

[edit] Broken Link

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

In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to matters relating to an army, as opposed to the naval and air force matters of the other two services: an example of this usage is here: [1].
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
the link does have official UK government usage of "military"...you just need to do a search on the word military..will put the link back to the main page.JRL 06:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military Reserves, Team Action Needs and a dependent Forecast

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Types of Military Forces

How about Types of Military Forces AlMac 5 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Define each type in a separate article, since various nations may have forms and structures not found elsewhere. As technology marches forwards, new types develop. AlMac 5 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Space Marines
Strategic Rocket Command
Underwater Special Forces

[edit] Different Nations

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

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

AlMac 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Expertise

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

[edit] Books

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

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

[edit] Games

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

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

  • Go
  • Dynasty
  • Operation Olympic

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

[edit] Category

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

[edit] Status

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

[edit] Military aid & Military spending

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

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

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


[edit] Strongest militaries

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

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

-G

[edit] Specific militaries

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

[edit] External Links Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

-G

[edit] British English usage

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

[edit] Too much of an Anthropologist?

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

[edit] very good

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

[edit] An Unnecessary Distinction

"Main article: Military history

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

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

Why when something talks about a topic so wide such as military of government, or architecture a Roman picture has to be it's representative? SHEeSh! (Unsigned comment from Jerahad 07:57, 22 June 2007)
I suppose because they invented much of it? It also avoids modern-day partisan issues. ROGER TALK 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That was the reason in fact. I could have posted there a US Marine, a Baath soldier of Saddam's time, a Red Army soldier, or even Che Guevara, etc... If you have an image you can suggest, it would be helpful. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)