Talk:United States Military/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Demographics

Some info on the demographics would be useful.Shambalala (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Colonial Wars

This link is unintelligent; I don't know what war it is referring to in US history. The article links to wars of the 19th century fought by European powers against its colonies and various guerrillas wars accompanying them. However, this can't be such wars, because that wouldn't explain why its all the way at the top, before the Revolutionary and War of 1812. So therefore, I propose we remove it; as it stands it links to an anachronistic and ambiguous article that is only slightly relevant. Gabr-el 04:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA

I am interested in boosting this upto a GA status.Gabr-el 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I have not taken part in editting this article, I might give this a shot myself in reviewing it, and improving what I think needs to be improved. Gabr-el 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military of the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to have to fail this article for GA status, based mainly on referencing concerns. Below is a list of the major issues with the article:

• Severe under-referencing. There are many sections that are completely unreferenced, and most sections that are under-referenced.
• The lead should be a summary of the entire article. There should be no new information in the lead, and therefore no need for references.
• There should be no lists in the lead.
• There should be no external links in the body of the article. Instead, they should be converted into references or placed in the external links section.
• There shouldn't need to be references in picture captions.
• The War on Terrorism section should probably be converted to "Current operations" or something similar, so that it covers all of the US Military's current activities, rather than simply one section of them.
• The "Other" section should either be converted into prose or merged into the "See also" section. There should be no sections other than the "See also" section that are just a list of links.
• The "See also" section doesn't need individual templates for each link. Per MOS, simply make a list of the links using bullet points.
• Any and all lists in the body of the article are discouraged by MOS. Try to convert these into prose as much as possible.

These are just the major issues I saw in the article as I took a quick run through it. They should be addressed before the article is renominated at GAN. I have not done a complete check of prose or minor issues, and so simply addressing these issues will not assure you of a GA, although it will put you a lot closer to the mark. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see what I can do. It will take me a little time. Gabr-el 06:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I trying to update the article. I have added a Budget section, updated the chart and numbers in the Personnel section and plan to add a Procurement and Technology section. The War on Terror section will be change to Current Operations, but I'll work on that later. I have yet to go through the History section and the introduction. Rick Evans 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJEvans (talk • contribs)

Budget

Shouldn't this article cite the National Defense Authorization Act for the budget?

Rick J. Evans 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please add it in if you can. Gabr-el 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I do, I want to make something clear. The article cites the Department of Defense Budget of 2009 (I changed it today, though I think it may be premature as 2009 FY begins October 1), which is about $583 billion. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 includes the budget for the DoD including wars and other funding for military and defense projects. This totals up to be $688.6 billion. I'm just asking, would it be appropriate to cite the Defense Authorization Act which includes war funding, or should we just cite the budget for the DoD. Personally, I think it is a good idea to cite the National Defense Authorization Act as it includes ALL funding regarding the military. I know some will object to including war funding the in the budget, so I wanted to pass it along. Rick Evans 01:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it all out. We will use the DoD numbers, but I also cited the National Defense Authorization numbers in a new Budget section. Since there is two weeks left for FY 2008, I most of the section was dedicated to FY 2009.

Rick Evans 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Outline

It looks like this article needs some work. So here is a possible outline.

Introduction

A brief summary of the article.

History

A brief history of the U.S. military, its origins and conflicts.

Current Operations

• Foreign

A brief summary on the military's current foreign operations.

• Domestic

A brief summary on the military's current domestic operations.

• NATO

Discussion on military's cooperation with NATO.

Budget

A discussion of the U.S. military/national defense budget.

Procurement and Technology

• Ground Forces

A summary of the military's ground capabilities.

• Air Forces

A summary of the military's air capabilities.

• Naval Forces

A summary of the military's naval capabilities.

• Nuclear Forces

A summary of the U.S. nuclear capabilities.

Structure

A detailed summary of the military's command structure.

Personnel

Numbers.

This is what I could come up with for now. Any input will be helpful. I will like to make this article as informative as possible. I have already updated Personnel and Current Operations, but they look more like a placeholder than actually part of the article.

Rick Evans (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Structure and Personnel should come before budget and procurement; personnel could actually be part of "Organization" with a corresponding reduction in the outline headings (with respect to the TOC). Also, I see where you are going with the "Procurement and Technology" section; but I think the title is wrong. Perhaps it can be just as simple as "Capabilities". This has the potential to grow way too big for a section. Military technology is always evolving, and that could be a completely new article with info on how miltech benefits society at large with its contributions to advancing knowledge in the areas of clothing, weather, medicine, etc. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk • contribs)

I agree with the ability to expand the article into subcategories in regards to technology and weapons since there is already tons of articles that exist on current weapon and technology systems. Overall, I am pleased with the new proposed structure of the article because it currently lacks logical structure. Have you looked at other nation's structure. -Signaleer (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

USCG

Am I wrong but I thought that the Coast Guard was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security?Prussian725 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though it falls under another agency, it still maintains its identity as a separate, uniformed, military department. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security. It was never a member of the Dept. of Defense. "The United States Coast Guard has both military and law enforcement functions. 14 USC 1, states "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." Coast Guard units, or ships of its predecessor service, the Revenue Cutter Service, have seen combat in every war and armed conflict of the United States since 1790, including the U.S. occupation of Iraq." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.2 (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The information that user 152.121.17.2 provided is not current. The current establishments and duties § 1. Establishment of Coast Guard state: "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy." for the Regular Coast Guard. The entire US Code can be found in Title 14. -Signaleer (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of people in reserve components

In this article it says that the reserve components of the US military have a total of 800,000 people in them, but in the Article "List of countries by number of active troops", it says that there are about 1,460,000 people, similar to the number of people on active duty. Which number is the correct number?

The problem is, there is no real up-to-date source for the number of reserve personnel. I know it is NOT anywhere near 1.4 million because the budget only allows a end strength of about 900,000. The reserve end strength from the budget is the one I used in the table in the Personnel section. Rick Evans (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Atrocities/War crimes/geneva violations, etc.

shouldnt we write a section starting like : "Atrocities"? (unsigned by User:EuroHistoryTeacher)

I don't think that it would be appropriate for this particular article. If that is something that should be addressed, I'd think that it would be better as a separate article. There'd also have to be some discussion on "alleged" v. "actual" within such an article as well as substantial citations. I'd be willing to bet that would also be an article that would be highly controversial and susceptible to a lot of vandalism and violations of WP:NPOV. And ... why single out just the US' military for discussion? There are many other countries whose military has run amok; in fact, I'd bet that the US' military is relatively benign compared to some. Food for thought.

Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For that section, there must be one for every single other military in existence to maintain wiki's supposed neutrality. Otherwise, it cannot be added and would end up being Anti-U.S. And I agree with the guy above me- many other militaries in the world have done much worse, notably the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Mongolian and Russian militaries. The U.S. is a daycare compared to some of them.

And this isn't even considering the many horrible things some African armies have done and are doing now. Check out what's going on in Congo right now. Unspeakable things. And this doesn't even include various rebel factions around the world either. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

I agree. You can't wade very far through war-related issues in WP without bumping into someone trying to feign a sense of outrage over an incident.

It definitely doesn't belong here. It's one thing for an unsettled issue to be debated in one spot. Putting it here, too, would duplicate the debate, and then we'd have every article tagged for bias.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the 3 previous posts. It's really hard to compare wholesale slaughters of enemy troops or of civilians with soldiers putting underwear on captives' heads, but inevitably the latter will be treated on the level of the former. Has the US military commited genuine atrocites? Certianly, many of them against Americans, by both sides in the "War for Southern Independence". But the genuine ones are so few and far between that any minor incident becomes media fodder. As stated before, it would be hard to keep such a section neutral. (unsigned by User:BillCJ)

I add my agreement as well: too tough to keep NPOV, vandalism magnet, and keeping a proper global balance of view. Perhaps, if one were so incined, a list of military atrocities in general gould be made, with every nation getting it's fair share. As it stands, Wikipedia in general, and a lot of articles within the scope of WPMILHIST, suffer from an Anglo- and especially US-centric systemic bias; and we wouldn't want to make it worse. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose adding such a section per above reasons. Gabr-el 02:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear!Prussian725 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well this has a atrocity section [1], so why shouldnt this article have one? the US is by no means a peacekeeping force despite much propaganda from Bush and his administration, as well as the US education system. --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted that section now because i guess as wiki rules state is not neutral and it was too anti-german.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.Prussian725 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

"Though the U.S. military is racially integrated and minority personnel have risen to the highest ranks, some criticize the relatively high enlistment of members of ethnic minorities, and people with relatively low income, and lower educational attainment as exploitive of vulnerable populations.[citation needed]"

Removed this paragraph. Weasel words and no citations. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Wow, less than 45 seconds and someone already put it back. I recommend it to be removed until citations are added and weasel words are removed. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

There is some truth behind the military making concentrated efforts to recruit more minorities and those of lower income standing. All you have to do is watch TV. Also I see it firsthand. Jersey John (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Armed forces of the United States"

I propose moving this artle to "Armed forces of the United States", because many people take "military" to mean just the land army.--Patton123 13:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed that the corresponding articles for otehr nations have been renamed, for example Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Indian Armed Forces and British Armed Forces. This supports my point; military is an ambigious term.--Patton123 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, but prefer the title United States Armed Forces, which is used in the Lead's title and in the infobox title. A search on the DOD website shows that this term is common, both in all initial caps and in US only in caps. - BillCJ (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Do not support: However, I do support what BillCJ's suggestion of the title of United States Armed Forces. -Signaleer (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I agree with armed forces of the US as well I will request a move.--Patton123 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Patton123 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Use in U.S. Code

In the United States Code the official name is armed forces of the United States. [2]

I've always seen it as United States Code or U.S.C. although on the official U.S. Government website, it refers the United States Code as U.S. Code http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ and http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html -Signaleer (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment in the United States Military

Can ANYONE help me start these articles about Recruitment in the United States Military, covering Recruitment in the United States Air Force, Recruitment in the United States Army, Recruitment in the United States Coast Guard, Recruitment in the United States Marine Corps and Recruitment in the United States Navy to go with Uniforms of the United States Military, covering Uniforms of the United States Air Force, Uniforms of the United States Army, Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard, Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, Uniforms of the United States Navy. Mr Taz (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I may be able to help, though some of my info might be outdated. My older brother is in the USMC and after he got through boot camp and MCT he let me have his manual which I think has sections on the uniform. That would be pretty current as he finished boot camp last June, I think. The other manual I have is for the Navy. My dad gave it to me some time ago, he was in the Coast Guard, so I think the book was issued in the 80's. Would you be interested in what I could dig out of them?Prussian725 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Armed forces of the United States

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

The result of the move request was moved to United States armed forces, as everyone seems to be able to agree that it should be lowercase, but there hasn't been a consensus to otherwise change the title. --Aervanath (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals for other pages which are likewise being discussed here to be moved.

From United States Armed Forces to Armed forces of the United States or to United States armed forces? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I know I was the one who got it moved here in the first place, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), it should be name "Armed forces of the United States". The "United States Armed Forces" is not an actual organisation, it is a collective term for the army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard of the United States.--Patton^t/c 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry for the confusion in the moves. Both terms are regularly used by the military, so I don't see a problem with "United States Armed Forces". Is this article not about the collective forces anyway? Go for simplicity, as both therms are just as valid, as far as I can tell. - BillCJ (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• The problem with "United Stats Armed Forces" is that it sounds like an actual organisation, which it isn't. Yes it is about the collective, I said that it's just another collective term and not an organisation on its own.--Patton^t/c 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Keep it as is or change to "United States armed forces". Both are far more common than Armed forces of the US. Seems like the main naming convention page has more weight than the country-specific one. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'd be OK with "United States armed forces". But whatever term we choose, let's make sure we have a clear consensus so this doesn't happen again. Patton, thanks for re-opening this topic - I was on my way here to do it! - BillCJ (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• The guidelines are mutually exclusive because there is no real common name for the army, navy, air force etc of the USA.--Patton^t/c 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Let's stick to the collective group. The "United States armed forces" is far more common name than "Armed forces of the United States", even if unofficial. Does not matter that much to me. I think this article was named Military of the United States some time ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• It should definitely be lowercase "armed forces"; it's not a proper noun, and shouldn't be capitalized. Parsecboy (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Why not move to United States military, which is far more common? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that there is no "official" term for the collective organizations (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) however the term "United States Armed Forces/United States armed forces" is frequently used. To justify the name of the article from United States Armed Forces to United States armed forces isn't necessary. Either case, it's not an official term. -Signaleer (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note the following Google test results:

"United States armed forces" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States military" -wikipedia 1,200,000 web sites

"United States armed forces" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States military" -wikipedia 7,609 books

"United States armed forces" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States military" -wikipedia 9,320 articles

"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -"United States military" -wikipedia 528,000 web sites

"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -"United States military" -wikipedia 4,250 books

"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -"United States military" -wikipedia 4,700 articles

"United States military" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -wikipedia 1,870,000 web sites

"United States military" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -wikipedia 19,986 books

"United States military" -"armed forces of the United States" -"United States armed forces" -wikipedia 44,600 articles

This demonstrates that the phrase "United States military" is used more often than the other two combined. That means "United States military" is clearly the common name. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I tried using Google to search how many hits it found when using parenthesis and it varied. Even though "United States military/United States Military" may be more frequently used to refer to the collective whole of the military service branches, should the term be used to define an online encyclopedia? I can't say, hence why there is a discussion about it. -Signaleer (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Although USm gets more hits I do not see that it is that overwhelming enough to justify changing from USaf to USm. I would, however, suggest changing to the lower case armed forces. Didn't Eisenhower call it the Military industrial complex? He actually wanted to call it the Military-industrial-congressional complex, but did not want to offend the Congress. No problem with focusing on only a portion of the subject? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Pictures

OK, because everyone has been undoing this Abu Garaff picture that shows a dishonorably discharged soldier holding a leash on a man, i have reverted to the old picture, showing the honor guard from each service, as to not create an editing war. Also, i have reduced the picture size with the service men and women in the football stadium as to not block out the chart next to it. If you have any problems, please, just come up to me, and i'll be happy to reason with you. Gunnerdevil4 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a picture of Iraqi soldiers raping US female military POWs? I think we should post that one the Iraqi Army page, as balance to show what kind of atrocities other armies actually commit. - BillCJ (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:EW, WP:DR, WP:ROWN and WP:RV. -Signaleer (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of Abu Ghraib pictures, we have some random flag march. First of all, the primary job of US Armed Forces is not marching with flags, but rather actual military services, in this case freeing the Iraqi people. The Abu Ghraib situation not only received heavy coverage, but was famous because of the pictures. Is that not the ideal picture then for this page? Famous pictures from a famous incident of a current war spearheaded by the United States Armed Forces. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A flag march might not be the best picture, but WP:CIVIL prevents me from saying what I really think of your proposed solution. Not a fucking chance that picture goes in the infobox. --Onorem♠Dil 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain, beyond saying "fucking?" The picture seems entirely germane. That's what US Armed Forces are famous for while freeing the Iraqi people. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the things the Armed Forces may have been 'famous' for during a short portion of their existence. It's not at all representative of the US armed forces overall. --Onorem♠Dil 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I quote Susan Sontag on this very issue (Abu Ghraib torture), "What makes some actions representative and others not?" Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that picture belongs in the infobox, I have no interest in discussing it with you at this point. Feel free to start at whatever part of dispute resolution you feel you need to. If there was a section on the war in the article, I'd have no issue with it being added there. I also have no issue with the picture appearing in the Gulf War article, but if you're suggesting that the Abu Ghraib image is the best to represent the overall subject of the US armed forces, I believe that we have far too much ground to cover to have a productive conversation between just the two of us. --Onorem♠Dil 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can link you to some articles, if that might help. There have been many articles in reputable publications on whether or not Abu Ghraib represents, variously, US Army, America itself, and so on. It is all very interesting; I am sure you will enjoy it even if you don't live in the US or otherwise do not follow this matter closely. Exploring these articles can help you cover ground to catch up on this topic. Hopefully then you will have more hope in productivity? Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't help. Again, feel free to pursue steps in dispute resolution. --Onorem♠Dil 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am... by communicating with you, and offering to present sources on Abu Ghraib, etc. I cannot see why you don't wish to discuss possible sources and different arguments. I'm already pursuing, but you are refusing to pursue. How can I resolve a dispute with you if you are unwilling to participate? WP:DR recommends "Discuss with the other party." I am doing so, or at least trying. You are refusing to discuss, yet you tell me to pursue steps of DR. Are you deliberately refusing to follow DR yourself? How can you acknowledge that a procedure be followed at the same time you refuse to follow it? Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) - I understand the steps. I'm choosing to not participate in the 'Discuss with the other party' phase because I flat out don't believe that discussion between just the two of us is going to be helpful based on what I've seen so far. Our arguing back and forth would be fruitless, so we might as well skip that step. --Onorem♠Dil 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image

I have reverted the lead image that Gunnerdevil4 made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_armed_forces&diff=277752702&oldid=277751075 The symbolic image of the Joint Color Guard is very much represenative of all the service branches (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard) and to depict a particular service branch, such as the U.S. Army does not go hand-in-hand with the main theme, which is the United States armed forces. -Signaleer (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

no worries, i only changed the lead image so we wouldn't have an editing war going on. People in the past have complained about whether the Joint Guards was a good enough picture to represent the Armed Forces. Personally, I believe that the Joint Guards is a very symbolic picture, however, I do not want to start an editing war, because of the pictures that were used by other users, one including the Abu Gharib humiliation picture. They do not believe that the Joint Guards represent the United States Military fighting for freedom, so instead of men marching, I changed the picture to men fighting. This is just how I rationalize this change, however, I understand why you reverted my change. Gunnerdevil4 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)