Talk:National Guard (United States)

Requested move 23 May 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

United States National Guard → National Guard (United States) – I am once again suggesting to move this page for two reasons. 1) The National Guard does not use United States in front of their name in any of their official sites and it is not seen on their Official Homepage. 2) Renaming this article title would make it conform with other article of countries' that have a National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - for the reasons stated in the OP, but also "National Guard" without the preceding "United States" appears to be the most common form used by secondary sources. As is, the current page name is somewhat of a misnomer as the National Guard is made up of individual state organizations. So both the official name and common name of just "National Guard", with the "(United States)" disambiguator, is the appropriate title for this article. (jmho) - wolf 16:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with other service branches such as United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Space Force, and United States Marine Corps. I would also note that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the title "U.S. National Guard"[1] for their article title. And the official national guard website at the bottom has a copyright notice that says "© 2021 UNITED STATES NATIONAL GUARD"[2]. And there are plenty of other reliable sources that have used the full term "United States National Guard" such as The New York Times[3], CNN[4], NPR[5], Time[6], and ABC News[7]. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The National Guard is not a service branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is a reserve component of the Army and Air Force. The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not use U.S. in from of the National Guard as it states it to be a militia force recruited by each state of the U.S., equipped by the federal government, and jointly maintained subject to the call of either. There is also plenty of the same sources that only use the term "National Guard" in their articles New York Times, CNN, NPR, Time, and ABC News, so to this point, it is not common use. And to your point of the © 2021 UNITED STATES NATIONAL GUARD, is stated that way because the site is managed by the U.S. government. It is also a Army National Guard site and not a National Guard site; and this is the Army National Guard's primary site. Nowhere else on that site does it use the term "U.S." preceding National Guard. This is the official National Guard website. Neovu79 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the most common usage to be used as a natural disambiguation title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right, however, the natural disambiguation title is National Guard (United States), not United States National Guard since United States is still not naturally part of title. Neovu79 (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Correction: under WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using the common use name for articles. Since the common use name is National Guard and not United States National Guard, the natural disambiguation title is National Guard (United States).Neovu79 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude here, but you clearly don't understand what a naturally disambiguated title is if you think that "National Guard (United States)" is a natural disambiguation. I suggest you read over WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I've read WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and I believe your argument does not qualify under 1 or 2. And by the way, when you add, "I'm not trying to be rude here" into a sentence, it may lead to the perception that you are implying said rudeness, so I normally avoid such wording so in order to stay as courteous as possible. Neovu79 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It would seem that every point Rr007 has made has been justifiably dismissed, and every counter-point put to them has been ignored, with their only, continuing argument being "wp:natualdab". IOW, they're now just arguing for the sake of arguing. But with that said, could we move all this debate down to "Discussion" and keep all debate down there? It would be nice to get a few more !votes up here. (jmho) - wolf 15:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - not much else reason for me beyond what Neovu and Wolf have already stated.

SuperWIKI (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support there's a lot of song and dance going on in the discussion, but I don't dance. We're making an encyclopedia here, so let's call it what it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• • @Rreagan007; Can you clarify? And not just how wp:natualdisambiguation applies, but also how you believe it trumps the other policies and arguments cited above. Thanks - wolf 19:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure I follow this argument Rreagan007. I don't see how this move, would not be, a WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION as it would "naturally" conforms with other National Guard articles. Neovu79 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, when more than one article exists that would use the same title, there has to be some method of disambiguating or distinguishing between different articles that share the same title. There are two ways to disambiguate an article title on Wikipedia. One is parenthetical disambiguation, which you are proposing to do in this move request, that puts disambiguating information in parentheses after the title. The other method is natural disambiguation, which this article title currently uses, which uses an article title that is not the most common title for a subject, but is still used and understandable as to what the subject of the article is about. Natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have to disagree as the National Guard is only half federal. It is a joint component that is controlled by the state governors, not just the president. Putting "United States" in front of it, is a misnomer, and is not preferable. This is making the the article view as it is primarily a federal entity service, which it is not. The preferred disambiguation in this case would be parenthetical. Neovu79 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to add that by Rreagan007's own argument, wp:natualdisambiguation is trumped by wp:commonname. - wolf 02:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that, but that is not correct. The whole point of natural disambiguation is that it's not the most common name, because the most common name can't be used by the title because it is already used by another article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I "get that" from your own comments and the policies. The "most common name" is available. - wolf 07:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the most common name is National Guard, which is occupied by another article on national guards of different countries generally. So it is not possible to move this article there. Thus, this article's title requires some form of disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, if you check where I linked the word "available" above, it's to the redirect "National Guard (United States)", iow it's available. - wolf 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The article isn't titled "Federal National Guard" it's titled "United States National Guard". And the President can federalize the national guard at any time and take full control away from the governors. And if having the "United States" as a natural disambiguator is a misnomer then it would also be a misnomer for it to be a parenthetical disambiguator. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But they aren't federalized all the time, they are primarily state organizations. Again, official name and common name both are just "National Guard". Adding "United States" before makes it part of the name, which is a misnomer, and goes against WP policy. Adding it after makes a disambiguator that is necessary, as there are other "National Guards" in the world, correct, as this one is from the US, and not a misnomer, as it's not actually part of the name, due to the parentheses. - wolf 02:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A natural disambiguation title can be a title that is not the official name or the most common name. And the National Guard is part of the reserve forces of the "United States Armed Forces",[8] composed primarily of the "United States Army National Guard"[9], so using a natural disambiguation such as "United States National Guard" is perfectly appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But commonname and the official (as in correct) name can both be used without having to resort to a somewhat incorrect disambiguated name. (I mean really... why?) As for the sources your cited, somewhat disingenuously, (selective quote of the first, using tidbits that serve your argument while omitting facts that don't, aka synth, and the second is just a top url), they actually help the case to move. Lastly, in violation of tpg, you altered your comment above, which has already been signed, timestamped and replied to. This edit should have been a new post down below. The additional commemts you added:
"...and per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with other service branches such as United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Space Force, and United States Marine Corps."
For that there is a fairly simple answer; those are all both their official/correct and commonnames, and they are not "service branches". But for "consistency", how about:

There is alot of wp:consistency there. - wolf 07:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)1

Let's get one thing straight here. This article cannot be moved to the most commom name, which is simply "National Guard", because it is already occupied by another article. Thus, this article title requires some form of disambiguation, either natural disambiguation or parenthetical disambiguation, and natural disambiguation is generally preferred in article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight here; at no time have I suggested that this article be moved to the generic "National Guard" page, so play strawman somewhere else. Obviously this article needs disambiguation, but of the two, the current "natural" form is both factually incorrect, and violates WP policy. That leaves the "parenthetical" form, which as shown above, is used in literally dozens and dozens of articles, just in the same topic alone, and countless others articles (thousands? hundreds of thousands?), all without issue. In fact, per WP:QUALIFIER, parenthetical disambiguation is "Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title". As clearly demonstrated, the current title is not "optimal". - wolf 19:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentire videtur - wolf 15:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

When you're using "United States", the underlining assumption is that of federal government or the country as a whole. That is not entirely the case. The president does not have the authority to "federalize" the entire National Guard, without an act from Congress, as the National Guard is under the administration of the states. I think you meant that the president can activate the National Guard with is not the same as federalized. For example an officer can be a federalized National Guard brigadier general but also hold a state National Guard rank of major general. If you mean that the president can make the National Guard part of the military, he doesn't have to since it is already a military reserve component. While the president may be able to activate the National Guard at any time, but by law (10 U.S.C. § 12301), he cannot do so without the consent of the respective state or territorial governors. He also cannot keep them in active duty for more than 270 days as seen here; individual officers can be assigned to a permanent federal positions which allows for active-duty extensions, but not the National Guard as a whole. The states/territories governors are responsible for the training all National Guard forces in their state/territory, not the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force. The later is responsible for setting policy for that training and both share responsibility in providing equipment needs. Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the President actually can federalize the state national guard over the objection of the governor of the state. President Eisenhower did it in 1954 Arkansas National Guard and the integration of Central High School. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again you're confusing federization with activation. Eisenhower activated the National Guard under the Insurrection Act of 1807 for temporary federal service, to quell civil unrest, and this was "at the request" of the governor of Arkansas. The president cannot permanently federalize the entire National Guard without the censent of each state or territorial governor. Neovu79 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, our own article on the subject says that "The Arkansas National Guard was drawn into the conflict when Governor Orval Faubus ordered them to "Preserve the Peace" by turning away the black students who were attempting to integrate into Little Rock's Central High School. United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower reacted to this use of the Guard to foil the court-ordered integration by federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard." So, the governor activated the national guard for one use, and the president federalized the guard for a completely opposite use to thwart what the governor was trying to do. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, by U.S. law, the president cannot permanently activate the National Guard for federal service without the permission of the state governor. Your example is an example of temporary activation which is within the president's power. I think you maybe are taking the term "federalization" out of its intended context. Neovu79 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just quoting our own article on the subject. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely you know better than to use WP as source? The actual ref attached to the section you quote doesn't mention the word "federalize" once. fyi - wolf 02:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

States info-box

Are there rules for info-boxes for individual states? California, Texas, Navada, and Massachusetts all have detailed info-boxes for their National Guard. On the other hand, states like Utah, Alaska and, Rhode Island have short articles without any info-boxes. I attempted to add an info-box to the article on the Utah National Guard, but the edits were reverted. Also, many of the info-boxes are not the same and are unique. Is there a specific way in how infoboxes should be made? LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

ADT language

Afghan war is over, so the whole section on ADTs needs to be amended to update the current situation. I only noticed this when I was checking to see if another page existed in wikipedia yet, and I noticed the word "opium" in the National Guard page.

Also, the phrase "more and more" is problematic. Guylaen (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)