Talk:Conscription/Archive 1

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."'

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


 * 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 moralitywho 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." "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.

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 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, 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)

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.

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)

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..  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)

Trim conscription in USA
I am going to trim the conscription 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Australian Draft Resistance and the Vietnam War

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)

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)

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 &mdash; List of conscription policy by country. OTOH, perhaps not. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Government type of the United States
With this edit, I reverted a change by User:AZ'sReincarnation, and had changed the Government entry for the U.S. from "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" to "constitution-based federal republic", giving an edit summary of "Strong my ass... NPOV you nationalists."

The reversion restores the entry to agree with the information found in the cited supporting source for this column. The source cited is the CIA World Factbook, 14 June, 2007 which, admittedly, might be a POV source on this particular point. I suggest to AZ'sReincarnation that if (s)he believes that it is worthwhile to editorialize in dispute of this point from the supporting source, (s)he add an assertion disputing this point and cite an appropriate supporting source for that assertion -- similar to the way some other entries handle conflicting info between the overall cited supporting source and other conflicting sources (e.g., the Conscription field for Croatia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

People with hanidcaps and compulsory service
What is done in various countries with people with handicaps? In watrtime, I'm sure it is different; the old joke that you qualified for the Russian front in Germany if you were breathing during World War Two, for instance. But, even that might differ in different nations, and I see nothing in the article referring to it. ("4F" is a strictly American term, bthough it does provide a link to the American Selective Serive System.)209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Table Colours & Content
could we use some more neutral colours than red and green. It says conscription implies good. personally i think consciption is vile and would rather go to prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest changing to pink and light blue to nearly match the colors on the map.Dynzmoar (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the Land Area, GDP & GDP per capita shown in the table are. What might be more informative is:- If there is a non-military alternative (fire service etc) How many conscripts there are in each country What proportion of the total military manpower is conscripted Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How many years conscription in each country is for


 * I added the table with initially just a few entries to the article in my revision as of 11:37, July 23, 2007. In that same edit I removed an unsupported assertion that "Small countries often have mandatory military service, ...". In choosing entries which I initially put in the table, I tried to have a range of area sizes, population sizes, GDP sizes, and government types (I initially mistakenly put Nationmaster's "Government status" in the "Government" column, but that has since been corrected). Looking at the info in the Nationmaster source which I cited in support of the table data, I couldn't find a good correlation between land area, population, etc. and the existence of conscription.
 * Yes, info such as you mention would be useful, if the data is available from citeable reliable source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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. 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 .  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, continued at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 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."  (No original research)  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.  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 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)

HALF THE ARGUEMENTS FOR CONSCRIPTION ARE ACTAULLY ARGUEMENTS AGAINST, WITH 'HOWEVERS' THROWN IN EVERY COUPLE OF PARAGRPAHS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale Tags
Most of the tags littered over the ad are 6 months or more old, don't see current discussion for most and they seem out of date. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are probably not not "stale tags", they are more probably tags placed at some point in thepast and now lacking timely responses. Without looking at the tags case-by-case, I'd say that in general the tags were probably placed as a courtesy alternative to summary deletion of what was seen as problematical assertions and, lacking timely responses, the problematical tagged material probably should be removed along with the courtesy tag. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

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

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.

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)

I second this. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSCRIPTION IN CHINA. High school students have a compulsory one week program of boot camp training, but it is for physical excercise and no one is forced to join the military. I have already altered it but it was changed back to its incorrect form. devilhunterred October 14 2009


 * Please don't shout. Please read WP:V. I have reverted recent changes to assertions in the article to reflect info found in the cited supporting sources. If these sources differ from other reliable sources, please cite differing and/or more current supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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.)

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.

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. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few possible pro-arguments for conscription as well. These arguments revolve around the use of the draft due to too few volunteers in the enlistment-based military of the United States. The first reason the draft may be used is because of wide-spread civilian disagreement with a completely necessary war. One example is World War 2-operating under the assumption that the United States' involvement in the war after the Pearl Harbor bombings was justified-the war was fought with an army consisting of 61% draftees (around 11,500,000 men, according to Bluejacket). Whatever the reasons for the public's lack of higher enlistment rates, our military operations from 1939-1945 in the Pacific may not have been as successful as they were with the mere 6,000,000 (1/3 the total) volunteers. Though there were few civilians willing to step up to a necessary task, the draft ensured America's victory over the hostile Japan. Another point to make out is the fluxuation of volunteer enlistment correllating with the strenght of the U.S. economy at the time. When the economy is weak and there are fewer technical/luxury jobs being offered, it makes sense that there will be a steady, if not rising, employment of manual labor/blue collar workers. In these rough times, all sorts of students and laborers may seek military careers to make ends meet when they may have formerly been aiming towards a civilian based tech-job or whatnot. This scenario holds true vice versa-when the economy is flourishing and tech-industry is employing, military personnel may turn to other jobs that are higher paying or less injurious or life-risking, but still applying the same concepts and ideas already learned throughout their careers-A completely reasonable and rational choice from anybody's point of view. Therefore, even if a war is widely supported, a strong economy may incite personnel to look elswhere in the civilian industry for a better-paying, easier-going job and lead to an overall lack of military employment. A drafting program could serve to pull some of these personnel back to their military jobs in order to carry out a war at hand. 67.171.167.100 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to note that you consider conscription as a thing that mainly affects young men, which is correct in the US perspective. However, if a nation is raising an army with a size of, say, 10 percent of the total population in order to fight a total war, the conscription will affect most men under 40 and many older ones. Another point is that you consider WWII enlistees as "volunteers". How do you define a volunteer? In 1942 (or in 1960), a young American male had to either enlist or be drafted. If he decided to join the Marines, he was a "volunteer". If he didn't take action, the draft took him. In such conditions, enlistment cannot be considered voluntary in any but in the strictly technical sense. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

draft evadees
draft evadees seems a bit too general

Venezuela
Forced conscription was abolished in Venezuela (1999 constitution) http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm article 134 JRSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP (talk • contribs) 10:21, February 7, 2006

Starting 1991 there is no conscription in Venezuela, starting in western state of Zulia and quickly spreading nationwide. At the present there's only a short paid training on gerilla-like tactics offered by the government to prepare people for the "imminent invation of Venezuela thuru the USA", and the common proffesional armed force. But conscription there's not! someone should please correct the map, I don't know how. Quaipau (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1999 constitution can be seen at http://www.constitucion.ve/constitucion_view_en/view/ver_arbol.pag?id_cat=3 -- note articles 134 and 135.
 * says that conscription exists.
 * I see that the table in the article did not list Venezuala, so I've added it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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) :)

Conscription army in Russia (and other ex-USSR countries) is inefficient, but there is always regular army. That's why Russia is trying to expand regular army and minimize conscription. In Ukraine a politician promised banning conscription, but as always when she achieved power, she easily forgot her promises. As for Chechnya, inefficiency is more a political will by oligarchs, government was controlled by them when first war was. --Sasha Chorny (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

While the statement seems inappropriately formulated, and may well be factually incorrect, it is not actually racist. Let us keep "racist" to its actual meaning, related to race, not as a generic ad hominem argument. 94.220.243.191 (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I note the articles Conscription Crisis of 1917, Conscription Crisis of 1944 and Francœur Motion. Also, a bit of googling turned up pages 53-54 here. My guess is that other supporting sources are available. Doesn't seem race-related in any sense to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * I propose that this section should be removed completely. This talks only about the US in regards to whether volunteer service is really volunteer. Putting the POV argument aside, if it were to be kept in, I feel it should have examples of at least two or three other countries that use the voluntary service model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarusama (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. It's a very relevant question concerning the only major military conducting both current and frequent intermittent operations.  As such, it should stay.  However, it should also be brought up to current.  The question has been answered by many people and many surveys showing that today's enlistees generally tend to be well-educated and cut across broad swaths of American society.  The military was one of the first equalizers when Truman integrated it, and remains so today.  Izuko (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Without taking a position one way or other on whether the US military is truly "volunteer" or not, the logic/ premise of the first commentator's argument is flawed - yes, the military probably does have a higher education level than the population in general, but what's relevant is the education level of those joining the military at time of their enlistment. That's what's relevant to the argument of how voluntary was their enlistment and how many other options they might have had when considering whether to sign up or not. Lumping the entry-level recruits w/ the West Pointers or those who've been in the force for years and took advantage of the educational opportunities just obscures (whether deliberately or carelessly) what's truly relevant to the question of the alternatives available to enlistees at the time of enlistment.
 * I'm not sure at what point the above unsigned comment was added (possibly it is a comment fragment separated off by later insertions). Anyhow, I see that the article currently cites Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11, Heritage.org, November 7 2005, which the results of summary research into the demographic composition of two groups of recruits: those who enlisted between October 1998 and September 1999 and those who enlisted between January 2003 and September 2003. See the cited source and the summary of findings provided there for details. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse what is voluntary with what is non-voluntary. The US armed forces are voluntary. Do they offer incentives to get people to sign-up? Absolutely. There are many men and women who take advantage of those incentives to better themselves. But to suggest they did not have a choice is inaccurate at best. I personally knew many volunteers who had the choice to join for education benefits, or take on student loans. I knew others who volunteered because the pay and benefits for their families was better than what was currently available in civilian life. But there was always a choice. Are there risks for the choices we make? Of course there are. Choosing to live in downtown Chicago vs. the suburbs probably increases the risk an individual takes to being exposed to violent crime, but some people choose to do so for the benefits of being closer to work, cultural attractions, less commute, etc. Those who sign up to take advantage of the military benefits, also sign up for the risk of being sent to a conflict (and all that entails). The US military is a volunteer military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macairet (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard -- 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)

GDP figures used in the article are completely wrong, while Nationmaster lists CIA figures. How comes? For example, Nationmaster lists Russian per capita GDP close to $10,000, while the tables shows $5.500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.57.102 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Update map - Lebanon
Since according to the article, Lebanon has no longer mandatory service, could someone update the map? (i.e. color Lebanon in blue). Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon DOES have mandatory service! The exception is if a household has just one son, otherwise, it's mandatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.43.40 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

is ROTC a form of constription
I'm from the Philippines and I'm wondering. We are giving the choice between ROTC or CAT. CAT is some sort of civil service while ROTC is weekly boot camp training. Is ROTC a form of conscription? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.41.6 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...
This paragraph sounds off to me. "Small countries have several options to raise a sizeable army. One is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history. The Swiss militias were so successful that their fighting style and weapons (especially the halberd) were quickly adopted by their enemies. This in turn made the Swiss very popular as mercenaries; many rulers even raised Swiss Guards. The rich Flemish trade cities of the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights. The famous Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) is a good example." Mostly the line "This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history." It sounds like original research to me, and it just sounds weird. Plus "The rich Flemish trade cities in the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights.". What's makes these "knights" so great? It should be re-phrased. Plus this article doesn't have ANY citations. Moocowsrule (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John Mill (who?)
I've removed tha following which was recently added as a closing sentence in the Conscientious objection section: "The philosophy of John Mill enshrines individual concience, and forbids the coersion of an individual and the subordination of their beliefswer to this question. to the greater good. ". The edit summary was: "Adds philosophical support to the 'Conciece Objections' section of the article."

Perhaps I'm just a dunce, but my reaction was "Who the heck is John Mill?". He is not mentioned elsewhere in this article, and bit if wikisearching and googling didn't provide a quick answer to this question.

Perhaps this is useful, but it needs a bit of context. Perhaps something like: John Mill, very famous philosopher, said in his book yammer yammer, "quote from the book".&lt;ref>citation of the book, giving page number of the quote&lt;/ref> -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

History section
I just added a section on Feudal Levies, the medieval equivalent of conscripts. I haven't sourced any of it yet but I will soon and invite anyone who wants to add further info or citations to do so. I really feel that this article could do with a lot more history of conscription in the military. Master z0b (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom conscription in WW I
Hi, the German WP says, conscription was made in during World War first only in Great Britain and later in Northern Ireland - not in the later Irish Republic. Does anyone know anything about? The Irish Free State was founded after the war, and I've never before heard about any kind of political or juristical separation between the later Northern Ireland and the rest of the island before that time. 217.228.69.4 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand need of this part:
"The young girls were put under various categories of training and testing for intellectual ability, physical beauty, and other talents. Blond and blue eyed women or dark-haired pale-complected women who fit preconceived Turkic ideals of beauty were especially prized. Those that had the best abilities were then put through various sexual traumas to prepare them as permanent sex slaves to whet the Sultan's sexual appetite and give him children."

This article is about conscription. But this part talks about traumas of young girls and there is no reference or sources for this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.40.66 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The whole thing is irrelevant to the context of the article. I had removed it from the article. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft card?
A minor point. Draft card currently redirects here, but there is no reference to the document in question. Thoughts on perhaps creating a different article? Surv1v4l1st (Talk 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines
I have reverted this edit, changing the conscription info for the Philippines from "No" back to "Yes", as indicated by the supporting source cited in the Article. This is the second time I have done this.

Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads, "The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service." I suspect that, though allowed, conscription for military service is currently not practiced by the RP Government; However, I have been unable to locate aciteable verifiable and reliable to support this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Philippines had mandatory military training for all high school seniors and male college freshmen and sophomores. The program, at least for college, is now called the National Service Training Program, for all college freshmen and sophomores (male and female) and therefore it could be said that the country has national service, but not conscription. Even if the NSTP did not exist, the Philippines did not require military service, only training, for its citizens. There have been no call-up of reserves since World War II. Will edit the article appropriately when I find references to support the things written above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskabobbins (talk • contribs) 07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

South Africa
No honorary mention of conscription 30 years ago in South Africa but no longer in effect? Invmog (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Government types
Is there any value to including the description of the government of the countries? Also, is there any standard to them? Why does Libya get a distinction between "theory" and "practice" while none of the other Communist states/despotisms do? Why is the US A "Constitution-based" country when none of the other ones (Like, say, France or Germany) are? What is the qualification for "emerging" ? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Back in this revision of the article, when the table was originally added, it contained only a few example entries. As I recall, there had been discussion that there might be some correlation between the existence of conscription and government type, GDP, country size, or other factors. I added the table with sortable columns so that this could be explored. Note that in this early version of the table, one column contained info from Nationmaster: Government; that was later changed to Nationmaster: Government type. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (added) I checked, and the Government type information in the article for Libya and the USA is supported by the supporting source cited in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Military slavery
This section sounds bizarre to me:

Those that showed special promise in fighting skills were trained in advanced and arcane warrior skills, put into the sultan's personal service, and turned into the ultimate fighting weapons known as the Janissaries


 * Agree, poor tone and sources through much of this article. Sources in cites are not the ones in references or further reading. Sensational and incorrect content, POV.--Parkwells (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No conscription in Indonesia
I propose that the sentence, "The former military dictatorships of Turkey, Greece, Spain, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Libya maintained draft systems throughout their reigns..." be edited, deleting "Indonesia. Indonesia does not have conscription. Toukairin 30-Nov-09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toukairin (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nations without conscription
Shouldn't it be differentiated, that some nations abolished the conscription and others just have suspended it (like the US)? Thus, can't it be stated in parenthesis in the image comment "No conscription (abolished/suspended)? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.Sjö (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Brandeis quote again
From the qoutes that are available online it appears that Brandeis was talking specifically about freedom of speech in the context of war, and that he didn't mention conscription when he said that "all bets are off". It is possible that someone quoted Bradndeis out of context. The article needs the original qoute, not the third-hand source that is used now.Sjö (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FWICS, this doesn't apply only to freedom of speech, and also not only to the what follows after a draft is allowed&mdash;but then I'm no expert and I've only perused snippets of one source, Freedom under fire: U.S. civil liberties in times of war, By Michael Linfield. Here's what I found:
 * On p.xix, Brandeis is quoted remarking re a story about Doolittle wanting to "cremate Tokyo", as having said, "During a war ... all bets are off".
 * On p.52, it says, "Although he had come to believe that 'in peace the protection against restrictions of freedom of speech [should] be unabated' Brandeis still recognized that 'During a war ... all bets are off'$113$"
 * On p.217, Note 113 reads, 'See Brandeis-Frankfurter Conversations, Brandeis papers, as quoted in Cover, The Left, The Right and the First Amendment 1918-1920' at 374." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that the connection between the Dolittle raid and "all bets are off" wasn't made by Linfield. Anyway, it still seems that Brandeis was talking about war. He never implied that conscription would lead to removing rights or ignoring the laws of war, at least not in any qoutes found so far. Sjö (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GDP Table
Is outdate and duplicated to other articles, I would suggest point to Per capita GDP --Jor70 (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of including GDP (and per-cap GDP, and the other columns) was that there had been some discussion here at the time the table was added to the article about the factors in those columns possibly having some correlation with whether or not conscription was practiced -- hence the table, sortable by the various columns. It was less about answering the question "What is the GDP of country X today?" (which is better answered by the article on Country X) than it was about answering questions like "does the practice of conscription seem to correlate well with high (or low) GDP?" Aside from being handy, using the same default source for the info in all the columns tends to normalize the info a bit (I just looked, and most of the GDP info is for 2007 -- with data from other years being used for just a few countries). Also, there is WP:CIRCULAR -- although that seems to be generally winked at in the case of the Lists of countries by GDP articles, which do tend to be well sourced (with three lists of countries by GDP from three different sources generally giving three different figures for each country). I don't really have a preference one way or the other, but I would prefer good consistency and good sourcing to less good of either or both. The present use of the Nationmaster source as the default supporting source for all the columns does provide some apparent symmetry, though that's probably illusory. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, then I think would be useful to add 2 lines on top of the table clarifying the pourpose of it and also clearly mention the year of the figures --Jor70 (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Amp873 removing sourced info
In the beginning of 2010 this article was a mess and rife with original research and unsupported statements. I and others have cleaned up most of it, and what the article needed was expansion with sourced facts, e.g. on the history of conscription. The recent edits have rewritten the article, removed citation and introduced unsourced text. The editor seems to have a clear anti-conscription bias as shown by e.g. the phrase "Conscription is the State’s slave labor". In other words, the article is heading back to being a mess of unsupported statements again. I urge Amp873 to add references to the statements, otherwise his/her edits risk being reverted per Wikipedia policy.Sjö (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has been restored several times. Some of the objections to the changes by Amp873 are: I'm sure that some of Amp873's edits and sources can be merged carefully into the current text. I intend to do that but I'd prefer consensus on the talk page first.Sjö (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wholesale changes need to be discussed om the talk page first.
 * The edits removed and replaced sourced text. A better method is to add your own text to the existing text, epanding the article and providing more sources, which is generally considered a good thing.
 * The edits are strongly biased against conscription, as shown by e.g. the attempts to link conscription to and slavery and nazism.
 * A minor point is that Wiktionary isn't a reliable source. Also, many of the sources added by Amp873 aren't freely available on the Internet. While that isn't necessary it certainly is preferable since it makes it easier to verify the citations.Sjö (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

most nations[?] no longer conscript soldiers and sailors?
most nations no longer conscript soldiers and sailors

I seem to be failing to be able to see that from the map. Added a [?] in the respective place.

--217.229.26.48 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not visible from the map. However, Military_service lists 115 countries (if I counted correctly) without military service, which would be a slight majority of all (~200) countries. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things about Taiwan
There are two things about Taiwan which need to be clarified:

1. Women are not conscripted to the military service. The sources given in the article did not list their original sources.

2. The Interpretation 490 did not state that "the male-only conscription does not violate the constitution". The problem is that the English translation and the original Chinese version are different. The responsibility should not totally fall on the translator. I have read the original version. The writing and punctuation are terrible. It's hard to believe that such poor writing was employed in a document like this. It has nothing to do with the style of legal document. A sentence runs between point to point and should roughly talk about the same topic. There is a sentence (from point to point) in the original document which reads,

"立法者鑒於男女生理上之差異及因此種差異所生之社會生活功能角色之不同，於兵役法第一條規定：中華民國男子依法皆有服兵役之義務，係為實踐國家目的及憲法上人民之基本義務而為之規定，原屬立法政策之考量，非為助長、促進或限制宗教而設，且無助長、促進或限制宗教之效果. "

If loyal to the original punctuation, that would read,

"Given the physical differences between males and females and the derived role differentiation in their respective social functions and lives, the Legislature enacted Article 1 of the Conscription Act indicating that, pursuant to laws, eligible male citizens have the duty of performing military service, the regulation was made in order to fulfill the national goals and constitutionally prescribed basic duties of the people, it is of legislative policy nature, it does not encourage, endorse, or prohibit any religion, nor does it have such effects."

At the beginning of the sentence it was talking about the differences of the both genders, and without any sign it changed to talk about the religion. The writing level was really astonishing. Qrfqr (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia does not have conscription
Military service is voluntary. I don't know why the map shows that Indonesia has conscription.Rad vsovereign (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the default supporting source re conscription for this article. Some individual country entries in the table explicitly cite other sources, usually more recent ones. The default supporting source says that indonesia has selective conscription. Some days or weeks ago, someone (perhaps you) replaced this with "No", but did not cite a supporting source. I re-edited the article, saying "Selective" and explicitly citing what would otherwise be the default supporting source and saying "No" but adding a Citation needed tag to that assertion. If no supporting source is cited within a reasonable period of time, the "No" will probably be removed. Please see WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Germany to end conscription
Germn defense minister von Guttenberg plans to abolish conscription as part of an army reform program (see links at ), though it's not yet decided in parliament. So Germany could now be coloured orange in the map at the intro, depending on the exact meaning of "planning to abolish". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Conscription in Germany will end on July 1, 2011.


 * FAZ:Wehrpflicht soll zum 1. Juli 2011 ausgesetzt werden (german) 92.252.121.8 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand that article (not very well), the info at that source says that the German government wishes to end conscription on 1 July 2011. That is not precisely the same as what you have said above. If that info is placed in this article, it would need to be updated sometime soon after that date. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC) corrected botched link 05:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 92.252.121.8's claim above is indeed a bit premature: the German government wants to end conscription next year, but it's still not decided by parliament. But since the governing coalition has a solid majority in parliament, it is practically certain that parliament will consent.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So could someone colour Germany orange in the lede's map? They now definitely "plan to abolish conscription within [less than] 3 years". Thanks! --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now Germnay's status in the map has been changed to blue, but it should be "only" orange until July 2011 - can someone correct that? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Countries with and without mandatory military service: US
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" Should this really be mentioned? Why have the USA a stronger democratic tradition then other countries in the list?Nicob1984 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article cites this source as the default supporting source for that information. As no alternative source is cited in this case, the default supporting source applies. That source says, "United States Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". The article assertion here is not that this is true, it is an assertion that that that is what the cited supporting source says.


 * WP articles should not assert unsupported items of opinion held by WP editors. Rather, generally, they should recount information gleaned from reliable sources outside of the WP editing community. See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. If other sources disagree with the cited source, WP:DUE applies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the comment and another one about Rwanda's multiparty system for the following reasons:1. What is in the article must be supported by sources, but that doesn't mean that everything in a source must be included in the article. 2. The comments are not, per se, a description of the type of government. 3. Source criticism. The comments are rather haphazard; why is one country of all the countries with multiparty systems singled out, and why is one country with a strong democratic tradition singled out?Sjö (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The sexism and forced male-gender-role of male-only conscription is worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.100.194 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon
Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic according to the Lebanese Constitution (http://www.presidency.gov.lb/English/ThenatureoftheLebanesesystem/Documents/Lebanese%20Constitution.pdf).  A.h. king  • Talk to me!  10:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 4 of the Lebanese constitution reads: "Greater Lebanon is a Republic the capital of which is Beirut." The default supporting source for government type says, "Lebanon 	republic".[republic] The CIA World Factbook says, "republic".. If it is important to clarify this, please cite in the article a source supporting your clarifications. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the introduction of the constitution, part (c) of part one (preamble) states that Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic based on respect for public liberties,especially the freedom of opinion and belief, and respect for social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination.. Therefore, Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic.  A.h. king  • Talk to me!  10:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Plus, the official website of the Presidency of Lebanon states that The Republic of Lebanon is a Parliamentary democracy whose independence was declared in 1943. (http://www.presidency.gov.lb/English/ThenatureoftheLebanesesystem/Pages/OverviewOfTheLebaneseSystem.aspx).  A.h. king  •  Talk to me!  10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As an aside, CIA (where the default source gets its information) defines "republic" as "a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation", which to me is a really weird definition (Sweden would, by that definition, be a republic). Perhaps the terms need to be defined before you continue the discussion?Sjö (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the road, in a bit of a rush, and in a suboptimal editing environment (visiting relatives, screaming kids, loud Disney movies on TV, etc.). I've added some clarification to the article. it probably needs further improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland? i don`t get it.
I don't get it, if Switzerland it's suposse to be the neutrality country, they never go to war, why in the hell do they have conscription? they don't even need an army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.205.45.193 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Conscription in Bangladesh
The map shows Bangladesh doesn't conscript. But the Constitution of Bangladesh provides for conscription in the Name of the President when necessary (i.e. in wartime), although it never has been practiced.

Is this kind of conscription "No conscription" or "Conscription"?

Ratibgreat (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I couldn't confirm that info at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/bangladesh-constitution.pdf. I didn't give that a close reading, though, and may have missed it.
 * Regardless, this article generally uses this source to support assertions in the table in its Countries with and without mandatory military service section re whether or not a particular country practices conscription. The map should reflect the info in the table. That source currently says that Bangladesh does not practice conscription, and sources that information to Amnesty international. The conscription info for some countries differs from or expands on info at that default supporting source. In those cases, specific additional supporting sources are generally cited. Hope that helps. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The table; presentation format, supporting sources

 * Only one column of the table is directly concerned with this article topic.
 * The info in that column is mostly drawn from Nationmaster:Conscription as a default supporting source.
 * That source cites its sources, but we don't present that info here.
 * In most cases, we present the info from that source without direct citation (treating it as a default supporting source), and without elaboration.
 * In some cases, we present elaboration or present information which conflicts with that source; sometimes supported, sometimes not.
 * In some cases, that source is disregarded in favor of other (usually conflicting) sources. This appears to me to be a violation of WP:DUE.

In light of the above, I propose that the table presentation format be revised to the following:


 * a few sample entries shown, three rows per entry
 * The entry as currently formatted
 * The entry as proposed to be revised
 * My remarks

Those are the only entries I've looked at so far. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started work on this. Note that the rowspans conflict with table sortability, and I've consequently made the table unsortable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I've worked around the conflict between rowspans and sortability by eliminating rowspans. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

China's 'conscription
Posted this on another wikipedia article, but I just want to reiterate that China DOES NOT practise conscription. It's constitution states that conscription is legal/can go ahead, but it has never ever been practised or put in place. This is mainly due to the fact that China already has enough volunteer soldiers from its 1.3 billion population. So yeah, just hope you guys could update it. 203.213.40.129 (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited the table to accommodate this assertion. Note that I have tagged the assertion citation needed; please supply a citation of a reliable source supporting this assertion. Also, re truth vs. verifiability, please read the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Conscription chart
updated and transferred in current discussion pageGomoloko (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Germany
The sources whether Germany has conscription or not differ?

Of course they do. The yes-source is from 1997, while the no-source is from 2010 and says it will end in 2011. Anyone noticing anything?

If you want a real source:

1. Learn German

2. Go at bundesgesetzblatt.de and click on kostenloser Bürgerzugang

3. Find ''Nr. 19 vom 02.05.2011'', open it and then open number 5

Congratulations! You have found the Wehrrechtsänderungsgesetz 2011, an act passed by the Bundestag - on the last page you can even find the signatures of the President, the Chancellor, and the two responsible ministers (defence and family).

Now look at point 2 (it's on the right side of the first page). If you speak German, read for yourself, if not, read what I have written down here:

Point 2 states how Section 2 (in German: §2) of the Wehrpflichtgesetz (Conscription Act) shall be changed. According to the new Section 2 (created by this act), the Sections 3-53 of the Conscription Act (which is nearly the entire act) are only valid during the state of defence.

That means that conscription in Germany has been abolished by federal legislature for peacetime.

Article 13 (on the last page) states that this law becomes effective on 1 July 2011, so the last day Germany had conscription will be 30 June 2011.

To summarize everything: Conscription in Germany will be abolished from 1 July 2011 on.

PS: You're wondering why the family minister signed an act dealing with conscription? That's because she was responsible for the alternative service.

--Harald Meier (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Iceland
The new constitution being drafted in Iceland includes an article that explicitly prohibits the introduction of conscription in Iceland. I don't know of any other country with that kind of stance against conscription so I suppose it would be a notable fact to include in this article. Perhaps it is best to wait until the new constitution is formally in force. --157.157.69.51 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A Vandal...
Removing the line "Who Claimed mandatory conscription to be unconstitutional." where it was inserted into a paragraph where it didn't belong.Obviously someone who believes in the draft is attempting to push they're beliefs on random people by inserting random nonsense lines inside of this article.Just warning people to watch out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Till 2023 Turkey will have proffesional army
Turkish AKP party(is the goverment), told that have plan to make the army proffesional.

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&ArticleID=1061983&Date=01.09.2011&CategoryID=78

Turkey need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Denmark not have obligatory military service
http://www.berlingske.dk/leder:aid=449936/# http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=322948 http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=322885

Denmark need to become blue color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk • contribs) 06:08, September 5, 2011


 * Your cited sources were dead links when I tried to look at them. Googling around, I did find this 2010 source at which speaks of a four-month conscription period for Denmark. This undated source (apparently current as of at least 2009) gives some background about the legal basis for conscription in Denmark. I also found this report dated February 2009 by the Dansk Institut for Militære Studier, the title of which asks, "What if We Gave Up Conscription?"
 * AFAICS, these sources support an assertion that, at least as of 2010, conscription in Denmark was legal and was being practiced. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Exist military service at Denmark, but is voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk • contribs) 08:57, September 5, 2011


 * I don't dispute that, but I have seen no supporting source confirming it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Uzbekistan planning professional army at the future
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051404.shtml http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/uzbek-army.htm

Need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan plan to make voluntary the army
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/03/30/296630/Premier-sets.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

United States : Post WW-II
This edit attracted my attention to this section. This section of the article currently says, without support, "In 1973, President Richard Nixon abandoned the draft and by 1975, President Gerald Ford abolished it. From then on registration was voluntary. ... In 1980 Jimmy Carter unsuccessfully tried to reinstitute the Selective Service Project." A quick look at http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm turns up "Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service." Assertions in this subsection need a verification check and, if confirmed, should cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The US most certainly DOES require registration for the selective service (http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm. The article still shows the US as not mandating registration. President Carter restored the requirement by executive order in 1980 http://www.sss.gov/QA.HTM#quest8. There has been pressure to return to an active draft in 2005 (http://www.cqpress.com/product/Researcher-Draft-Debates-v15-28.html), and the legislation currently does not prohibit use of conscripts. Further, as recently as 1987, judicial conscription of convicts was still present; in 1987, the Dept of the Army ceased accepting judicially ordered individuals, according to the Stars and Stries article in 1987, the other services had ceased accepting them about a decade earlier. One of the guys I went through basic with in 1987 joined under judicial mandate for a non-violent misdemeanor conviction, and the DI's made it public knowledge to the platoon. Wfh (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the list
The list of countries with conscription should be removed for a few reasons:


 * 1) It is not needed in two articles, military service has far more detailed list
 * 2) The list is based on a 1997 source, by NationMaster Quote: "DEFINITION: A description of the status of conscription in the nation in 1997. ". It's very outdated.
 * 3) Although most countries have been updated despite the 1997 source, it is ridiculous to state "sources differ" in some cases. The other source is from 1997, the other from 2011 - they do differ for a simple reason: the other is outdated. --Pudeo' 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response
 * The DEFINITION quote which you mention above is indeed present in the Nationmaster:Conscription source. I don't know what the intended import of that might be, but you might note that the table in the Nationmaster:Conscription source is headed, "Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country", and that info for (most) individual countries listed there is individually sourced further to a number of organizations named there as sources. I have in past (post-1997) years edited the table at  issue in order to syncronize it with changes in the cited Nationmaster sources.


 * I have a concern about preserving content. AFAICT, the Military service article does not duplicate all of the info re conscription which is contained in the table.


 * Just as a historical note, a smaller version of this table was originally added to this article some years ago following on talk page discussion speculating that factors other than conscription status which the table lists in sortable columns (GDP, type of govt, size, population, etc.) might impact a country's policy re conscription. I'm not offering an opinion on whether this was or might still be a good reason for providing the table (either here or elsewhere), but that is the reason it was provided initially. The table has grown over the years as individual editors have added info on various countries not listed there at the time.


 * I think this needs a closer look. I looked at a few of the early entries both in the table and in the ''Military service article.
 * Albania
 * The table lists Albania as having conscription, per the Nationmaster source. That source cites Amnesty international (AI) and War Resisters International (WRI) as the source of that information.
 * AI doesn't say anything relevant in their 2011 annual report]. I haven't checked earlier reports.
 * WRI says here that Albania has been reported as intending to end conscription by 2010. There is some commentary there about that, and the conclusion that from the media reports, it is not clear whether conscription will be completely abolished or only suspended, and that it is also not clear if the constitution will also be changed.
 * The Military service article says that Albania's conscription ended completely at the end of 2010 and the forces become an all-professional army, citing this supporting source which speaks (apparently before-the-fact) of Albania's intent to create a professional army by the end of 2010.
 * Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia are listed in the table but are not covered in the Military service article. Barbados is listed in the article but not in the table. The info for Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Belize agrees between the two.
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * The table says sources differ
 * Nationmaster says yes, citing WRI. My guess would be that they relied on this report updated in May of 2005, which said, "Conscription is regulated by the 2004 Defence Law, which entered into force in May 2004. ..." WRI said here in November of 2005 that Bosnia intended to formally end conscription in 2006 but had already ended it in practice; here, in June of 2006, they said, "Clarification would be welcome as to whether the abolition of obligatory military service is absolute, or whether there are any provisions allowing its reinstatement in time of war or national emergency, and also as to the situation of the large number of former conscripts who have been listed on the reserve strength of the armed forces of the two entities. Are they now automatically released from reservist duties; if not, is there any provision for individuals to apply for release as conscientious objectors?". The table also contains an unsupported and cn tagged assertion that conscription is not pricticed.
 * The Military service article says that conscription was abolished as of 1 January 2007, citing this 2006 source which reports that the conscription system was terminated on 1 January 2006.


 * The above goes further than is required by WP. WP does not require editors to track sources cited by its cited sources where such sources are named. WP simply requires that sources which differ be given due weight. The above does indicate to me, though, that it would not be an overall improvement in WP to discard info in the table in favor of the info in the Military service article.


 * The entry for China in the Military service article is intresting. It contains "[2]", "[1]", and "[4]"; apparently artifacts of cut & paste operations from another WP article after rendering, instead of from the wikitext, or possibly from some uncited source outside of WP. This ought to be fixed. added: I've fixed that with this edit.


 * I would suggest that, since conscription is a narrower topic than military service, the info that the Military service article treat this article as a summary style article on the topic, provide a main link or a see also to it at appropriate points. Also, the two articles ought to be audited for excessive redundancy and contradictions. In the meantime, perhaps contradict other tags ought to be placed in both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's keep the table then. But it needs to be updated, Albania indeed has no conscription anymore since 2010 because it has a development program with NATO. Bosnia and Herzegovina has done the same. Heck, what is questionable about France's conscription status? I'll just remove the "sources differ" from the clear cases.--Pudeo' 12:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't contest that for now unless I happen to spot something which I perceive as a problem on a case-by-case basis. However, I do disagree generally based on my understanding of WP:V and WP:DUE. I'm involved in a discussion about this here, if you're interested. Generally, I think that DUE requires that if sources A and B are generally reliable but differ, both should be presented and the difference highlighted (an exception to this which would be relevant here is where one source is less dated than the other and is clearly presenting information resulting from a change since the publication of the earlier source). Some editors disagree, and feel that a case-by-case subjective editorial judgement that one source is not factual is sufficient to suppress that source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the list
While I have no problem with the list being included in the article, I will say it is very inconsistant. for example it fails to mention that Jamaica and Australia are monarchies. It says that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm but does not say that Australia is. I think it could do with a cleanup. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Norway and Venezuela made voluntary the army
Norway: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541

Venezuela: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither of those seem to support an assertion that conscription has been ended in those countries. They might support assertions that an end of conscription is being considered, or is planned, or something similar. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Conscription
There is no link to the serious problems that arose in Canada for both WWI and WWII, e.g., the article Conscription_Crisis_of_1917 G. Robert Shiplett 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Russia plan to make professional-voluntary the army
Medvedev told that after 5-7 years, Russia will have army 100% professional-voluntary.

At army will be 90% professionals, and 10% volunteers.

www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050053057054055.html www.aif.ru/society/news/101586 http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20111125/497704011.html http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=641678

Russia need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.131.90.28 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

China
Not sure how to go about changing things with all the intricate formatting, but says here China does have conscription, it just doesn't release data about which recruits are conscripted, as acquiring them by voluntary or compulsory means is a local responsibility:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:h-K9JlRDa_QJ:www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4b6fe1ab0.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShg4KD7U33c51h_4HmzMfy5QbqPZEgGVgtp0Y8F_qSRJosbx9VKHw7eKxI5ogRv_ouhhim2VoU237LDi7tmX3IUpre9d46tygKSe7iE0SFi0JN1jECn5A7bu-9DUN-DcxV2_78S&sig=AHIEtbT-DAEyCVaW_GcqFcxXLb4wgeCVcQ

Darkmusashi (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Italy
Italy is not in the table.

I remember Italian-Canadian friends having issues in the 1970s when visiting Italy because they could suddenly become subject for their military service.

At that time, it made Italy sound like Switzerland, Israel, and so on. West Germany.

Varlaam (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw, neither is Sweden. According to Swedish Wikipedia, Italy abolished conscription in 2005, while Sweden did so in 2010.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See this and this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

America
Why is the American section so much larger than any of the others? Threadnecromancer (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
 * Because you haven't made the other sections a comparable size yet. Also American section needs to talk about the vietnam war.174.28.176.195 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nigeria not have military service
Nigeria not have obligatory military service. Have only obligatory "social service" for those who have diploma, to they have experience after their studies.

This is not obligatory military service, so Nigeria need to be blue color at the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Service_Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.85.149 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2011‎ (UTC)


 * That assertion that Nigeria has no conscription would be supported by this article's default source for such info. It is also supported by the WRI country report for Nigeria (with info dated 1998). The map has been in this article since 2008, and has been updated a number of times since then. It looks like it may have some connection with this map at chartsbin.com, though I can't guess which came first. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Universal or partial conscription
It seems to me that the issue of universal or partial conscription should be mentioned. For example, during the 1950's era in the USA and Australia,   only a proportion of the eligible young men were actually recruited,  based on some kind of lottery arrangement. On the other hand, in some countries basically ALL young males are supposedly conscripted,  unless they have some medical excuse. This includes South Korea and Turkey and Switzerland, not sure about Russia these days. This seems to me to be a pretty important political distinction which should be mentioned for those less familiar with the issue.Eregli bob (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Conscription of woman:
It is never licit to conscript woman in any form or manner, therefore that term is not apt, and must make why for voluntary inscription. Conscription of woman is equitative to conscription of children & child labour, specifically for the purpose of their smaller size (ie: coal mining forced servitude). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Armed forces quality
Is anyone having good English-language sources for arguments pro/con conscription, what becomes to army quality? Here (1981) a Cato guy interestingly argues that in US conscription would lower the average quality of recruits. Or is there discussion of the subject in some other wiki-article? --J. Sketter (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesnt need a source. historically most conscipts did poorly in comparison to professional Military men. look at vietnam put kids right out of high school in a junjle with out proper training other than your basic drills + the fact they don't give a shit about said war. this all lowered their kill rate and many missed on purpose when confronted(not metally trained to kill) as well as frequent spray and pray(leading the AR serise to be burst to prevent wasted bullets). The civil war is another great examples of the poor army quality of conscription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.191.20.2 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What the above user is referring to is the practice of drafting untrained civilians, giving them a short basic training, then sending them directly into battle. This can hardly be compared to a standing conscript army. For an example of the latter, note the Imperial German Army in WW1, which successfully employed its reservists in frontline operations. The US is simply not a good example to refer to, because it has never had the continual conscription system used by pretty much every European state (Great Britain excepted) from the late 19th century until well after WW2.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Antarctica has an army?
The map in the info-box has Antarctica coloured as "no enforced conscription." Yet, there is a colour option of "no standing army." The fact that Antarctica was not classified as "no standing army" implies that it does have a standing army, it's just not a conscripted army. Since Antarctica isn't even a country, how can it have a standing army, especially as the Madrid Protocol designates it as a 'natural reserve devoted to peace and science' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Politics)? --Wertyu739 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Just found out there's a separate talk page for the picture. I'll post this there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertyu739 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Map adjust
Ukraine has conscription again --Львівське (говорити) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Besides, the source about Ukraine plans to end conscription is outdated. It is from before the current pro-russian unrest, witch destroyed any plans by Ukraine to end conscription.

Map caption
The map caption says orange is for "reinstates conscription" which a) doesn't make a lot of sense (is it "reinstated conscription" -- that's the same as "conscription"; is it "plans to reinstate conscription"?) and in any case, b) it doesn't match the caption on the image's page. --Taejo|대조 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

China
The map has China colored blue ("No enforced conscription"), but the chart states that China does have conscription. So, which is it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

it seems they do officially but in practice it is a joke  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalbendini (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It meant China has conscription, but it's not enforced due to sufficiently large volunteer pool as a result of China's population size. Hence China's membership in the No enforced conscription club: it's there in the book, but enforcing it isn't necessary and probably will bankrupt the government. Unless WWIII happens, and it's a land ware, it's hard to see China ever enforcing conscription.

Impressment
This article should make some reference to this "proto" conscription practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB07:219:3401:3E8E:3117:7421 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine
Ukraine reinstates conscription. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27247428 Please update the information. --Reprarina (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Brazil
As of 2014_12 the map at this article shows that there is no forced conscription in Brazil, but Conscription_in_Brazil clearly states that there exists a forced conscription. Which of the articles is wrong?
 * Brazil is colored red in the map, which the map legend says indicates, "Conscription". The info in the de4scription at File:Conscription map of the world.svg confirms that. I see that the "Yes" for conscription in Brazil in the table in the article is tagged citation needed and that the Conscription in Brazil article cites this source. I'll add a cite of that source there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan part all wrong
Taiwan currently has conscription, but in the process of abolishing it, not reinstating it. Only men are drafted. -Szqecs (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the table entry, I think that the part which says "conscription will remain in practice thereafter" is relying on the part of the cited source which quotes Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min as saying, "In addition, people scheduled for their one-year compulsory military service would only have to go through a four-month military boot camp" -- interpreting conscription as a term validly describing "one-year compulsory military service". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Mandatory military service" vs. "Compelled military service"
The meaning of the word mandatory has been discussed in the section above on. In fact, the question of the meaning of this word appears to lie at the heart of that discussion. However, the impact of a consensus decision regarding the meaning of that word for purposes of this article would have impact beyond this article's assertions re Austria, so I have started this new discussion section.

As I said in the section above, the word Mandatory is defined here as "Required or commanded by authority; obligatory", with an example usage given as "Attendance at the meeting is mandatory." Also see here, defining the word mandate as "An authoritative command or instruction". This might be thought of as indicating by the use of the word mandataory that the section headed "Countries with and without mandatory military service differently" speaks of countries where military service is required by law for at least some persons. Perhaps introductory material clarifying this ought to be added ahead of table the section presents.

I believe that a section with this name ought to observe the usual meaning of the word mandatory in selecting and presenting content contained therein.

I note that this section came into being (prior to the addition of the table) with this 7 January 2004 edit, which merged material from a separate article titled Mandatory military service which had existed for just one day and which now redirects to this article.

The section could be re-headed something like "Countries with and without compelled military service", and could present content regarding countries where military service is compelled (with and/or without an underlying legal mandate). However, I suspect without having checked that (1) the two sets of countries are not identical and (2) some of the supporting sources currently cited in support of an assertion that conscription is mandated would not support an assertion that the conscription mandate is enforced.

More appropriate at this point, I think, might be the presentation of clarifying information about countries where supporting sources exist with information that conscription mandates are or were not enforced for particular periods, and citing those sources. Perhaps this might be in a subsection on "Countries where Mandatory Conscription is not enforced", or "... is not universally enforced", or "... is or has been sometimes not enforced".

Perhaps, on the other hand, the section and the table it presents ought to be eliminated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a wide range for interpretation within compelled. E.g. one may consider it compelled if you can get out of military service by paying a fine. Others may require that a possible jail sentence is involved. Mandatory is much more general and easier to determine. I think a table is informative and it would be nice to keep it. --Hansbaer (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You lost me there. It appears that whatever you understand the word compel to mean, it is different from what I understand it to mean. My understanding is that "to compel" is synonymous with "to force", per, , , , etc. This is contrasted in this discussion with a "mandatory" requirement, which is a requirement made obligatory by command from authority (, etc.). My understanding is that the authoritative command which makes the requirement mandatory is separate and distinct from any compulsion which might (or might not, or might not always, or might not evenly) be applied in order to force compliance. The mandate and the compulsion are separate and distinct and, if both are treated in the article, the difference between them should be made clear. It is possible for mandatory requirements to exist which are never enforced. It is possible for compulsion to be applied to force actions for which there is no authoritative mandate. The two are different.


 * Yes, "Mandatory" is easier to determine; a reliable source verifying the existence of the mandate can probably be found. Verifying whether and to what extent the mandate is enforced (i.e., compliance is compelled) is probably more difficult.


 * I should probably clarify that I added the final sentence in my statement beginning this section after looking at WP:RECENTISM. I'm thinking that perhaps the section we're discussing might be better placed in a summary style detail article summarized here and linked from here. Placed here, it seems to me that it overwhelms the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I got you there actually, I think. I mean it's just dependent on how the force is exerted. If a mandate exists is more or less binary: either it exists or it doesn't. So a column in the table would be pretty much "yes" or "no". But compulsion can be indeed a wide range - difficult to compress into one column, but worth a try. --Hansbaer (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about conscription, in all its varying meanings. The section should just be title "Conscription by country", and then we can add a whole paragraph explaining that conscription may be mandated, compelled, required, recommended, implied, or vaguely suggested, as detailed in the table.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

North Korea
I have changed the text because it asserted that Israel was the only country that had universal conscription for women. North Korea does too. Some women might get exemptions in North Korea, but they also do in Israel, as the text admits.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Rome
I think that in the field of ancient military this article should include at least a reference to Structural history of the Roman military.Diegopiacc (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Austria (done)
Austria still has conscription

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20001612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.131.104 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, came here just to post that. Recently I think they even had a referendum and decided to keep the law on mandatory conscription. The map has to change. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NORWAY also has mandatory conscription. See: Norwegian Armed Forces Ratipok (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The source which is used for the "proof" that Austria has no enforced conscription claims that "in recent years" nobody has been punished for total objection. Even if that is the standard for the map and the list - which is questionable IMHO - the source is flawed. It cites a report from 1993 (!), so that the recent years mentioned there are not so recent at all. I found this report from 1999 which shows a case of a total objector who was sentenced to 2 months inprisonment. Maybe you can weigh in and help to convince the user who maintains the view that Austria has no conscription .  --Hansbaer (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peception of truth vs. perception of untruth by individual Wikipedia editors ought not to be the focus. If source A is outdated and the info in it is overtaken by later contradictory info in source B, then the info in source B ought to be used and that source cited. If there is some controversy about the matter (perhaps mentioned in source C), then perhaps that should be mentioned and sources A and C cited. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to avoid an edit war. --Hansbaer (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Norway does not have conscription. Nobody is forced to serve, so the service is voluntary: http://www.dw.de/norways-military-conscription-becomes-gender-neutral/a-17995882
 * "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance."
 * Nor does Denmark, there has been enough volunteers so no one has been forced to serve: http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/263421-army-good-times-crisis
 * "The number of young Danes who have opted to volunteer this year has been more than sufficient to fulfil the Danish army's annual quota of 6,500 new recruits."
 * However I admit that there are not enough information about Austria. If someone could find sources proving that austrian men are currently sentenced to prison because they object, that would mean there is still conscription in Austria. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps info in the Austrian conscription referendum, 2013 article has some relevance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you provided does not have any relevant information about whether total objectors are punished in Austria. But article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Armed_Forces#Personnel.2C_Conscription.2C_Training.2C_and_Reserves states that "Exemptions from service are liberally granted — in 1992 about 12,000 persons were exempted, a great increase over the 1991 total of 4,500." Since the number of recruits has dropped from 45 000 in the early 1990's to 26 000 in 2015, it is likely the exemptions are even more liberally granted nowadays. So unless there is proof of a recent prison sentence of an austrian total objector, it is likely that Austria does not have conscription in practice.--Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not find any entries of austrian total objectors in War Resister's International's activist database: http://www.wri-irg.org/ActivistDatabase Countries that have conscription (Finland, Greece etc) usually have multiple entries. This also supports the claim that Austria does not have conscription.--Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The part of the above beginning with "It is likely" is called "original research" in Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia policy at No original research (Often referred to as WP:NOR, NOR, and by other shortened mnemonic tags).
 * Your second paragraph relies on synthesis of published material See the Synthesis of published material section within the NOR policy.
 * If you feel that Wikipedia policy is in error, this is not a proper forum for a discussion about that. One more appropriate forum might be WP:VPP.
 * You might also take a look at WP:NOT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that people do not understand that conscription means compulsory service. If a country forces people into armed service, then they have conscription in practice no matter what the law says. So any proof of whether people are forced into the army or not, is directly related to conscription.
 * If you look at the article about Capital punishment, you can notice that the page shows statistics of capital punishments carried out in each country. They for example classify South Korea as "abolitionist in practice", since no one has been executed in recent years. So whether punishments are actually carried out, is a criterion of whether the country has capital punishment in practice. The map also shows countries that have not had executions in recent years in a different color.
 * We should apply the same logic to conscription. Statistics of punished total objectors is not synthesis of published material, but a proof of whether there is conscription in practice or not. So the decision whether Austria has conscription should be determined by the existence (or absence) of austrian total objectors in recent years.--Roopeluhtala (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Re what conscription is for purposes of this article, the lead sentence of the article says, "Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service."
 * The article section headed Countries with and without mandatory military service does not explain the intended meaning of those words beyond that. I take those words there to mean that the table in that section contains information about which countries require by law that at least some persons perform some form of military service.
 * Per WP:SYNTH, for purposes of Wikipedia, synthesis is combining material from multiple sources or from different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Your paragraph above which I said relied on SYNTH said, "If someone could find sources proving that austrian men are currently sentenced to prison because they object, that would mean there is still conscription in Austria." Citing a number separate reliable sources asserting that austrian men are currently sentenced to prison because they object in support of an assertion in the article that Austria has conscription would not "prove" that austria has conscription. One reliable source which says that Austria has conscription would be sufficient to support an assertion that Austria has conscription (or did have, as of the date of that source). If that assertion by that source conflicts with contrary assertions by other reliable sources, WP:DUE comes into play.
 * Per WP:OR, to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. In order to avoid OR in stating that Austria does not have conscription, you must be able to cite a reliable source which asserts that Austria does not have conscription. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "I take those words there to mean that the table in that section contains information about which countries require by law that at least some persons perform some form of military service." Your assumption is wrong, the section contains information about which countries force people into service. In Norway and Denmark the law requires people to do service, but people are not forced, so the law is not applied in practice.
 * "Citing a number separate reliable sources asserting that austrian men are currently sentenced to prison because they object in support of an assertion in the article that Austria has conscription would not "prove" that austria has conscription." Would a number of sources asserting that south korean courts sentence people to death prove that South Korea practices capital punishment? Yes they would. We should apply the same logic here.
 * "One reliable source which says that Austria has conscription would be sufficient to support an assertion that Austria has conscription" Conscription in practice or by law? I agree there is conscription in Austria by law, but what happens in practice is relevant. So the source should use the correct criterion to make the claim.--Roopeluhtala (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you and I understand the words Countries with and without mandatory military service differently. The word Mandatory is defined here as "Required or commanded by authority; obligatory", with an example usage given as "Attendance at the meeting is mandatory." The meaning of that word is not dependent on what measures,, if any, are employed to enforce compliance. Also, you may be interested to know that I am the editor who originally added this section and this table to the article with this July 23, 2007 edit, which changed the section header from Countries with mandatory military service. I added the table (something which I have subsequently had plenty of cause to regret) in order to provide some concrete examples to replace a couple of unsupported editorial assertions which had linked the employment of conscription by national governments to factors such as size of the country, its political system, etc.
 * I am doubtful that this discussion here is producing any useful results. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is actually a good point. The claim that Austria does not have conscription is entirely based on a source which explicitly says that Austria has conscription. In fact, it does not even claim that total objectors are not punished. It just says that there were no cases of total objectors in recent years, and even that is based on an outdated report - while there is a more recent newspaper article that there was one total objector who was punished for not serving . Apart from that it seems that nobody here or on the Commons shares Roopeluhtala's philosophy on what constitutes conscription and what doesn't. Both the map and the table should be changed. --Hansbaer (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The example you gave was about a total objector who objected in 1980's and got his sentence after 17 years in 1999. Would it be possible to find another example of an Austrian total objector, who objected for example within last 15 years and got sentenced? --Roopeluhtala (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It might, but probably not online. This was apparently not national news, and many if not most local newspapers do not keep extensive online archives. In any case, it is not relevant. --Hansbaer (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

http://derstandard.at/2000012854620/Jenseits-der-Vor-Stellung-Will-nicht-gibts-nicht this article is in German and describes how a 17 year old views conscription in Austria today, http://www.bundesheer.at/adressen/pdf/stellung_vorarlberg_2015.pdf conscription does exist in Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.182.159 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think, the WP-Administration wants to say that in Austria there is conscription, but it's ommitable through legal methods, which is true. But this should in the graphic be better explained. Or the graphic could be simply changed so that it collectivates all countries with conscription and not to divide between enforced and unenforced conscription. And if yes, it should be better explained in the graphic legend. Or one could make a single explanation of Austria's conscription. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Austria has been changed back to red.Roopeluhtala (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Greenland
Given it is a part of Denmark still I don't see why it is counted as lacking any sort of armed force. Looking at the wiki article on the topic Denmark has responsibility for defending Greenland and maintains military bases ther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer (talk • contribs) 18:45 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is true. Denmark at least the Sirius Patrol, Station Nord (north) and ships patrolling the waters. I don't see Greenland in the article though. Perhaps it has been removed. 2.110.44.130 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP may be referring to the map in the lead, where Greenland is colored to mean "No armed forces". 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Czech Republic
It appears that Czech Republic is planning to reimplement conscription in 2016 or 2017, for both genders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalNomad (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sexism
We've been rolling this section around over at Talk:Sexism, and the consensus seems to be trending toward including a very scaled down version of the section and moving the full version over here, if those on this article are open to it. It seems like a great improvement over the sexism section currently in place. Take a look and see what you think. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

{{talkquote|

Sexism
Conscription has been widely criticized as sexist. Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription,    and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that the theoretical arguments are immaterial to those who are pressed into service: "Some women are excluded from combat, but many more women are exempt. While some men are excluded from combat (because they fail the relevant tests), many more are pressured or forced into combat." According to Benatar, "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption".

Currently, only nine countries conscript women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru and Taiwan. Other countries—such as Finland, Turkey, and Singapore—still use a system of conscription which requires military service from only men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily. In 2014, Norway became the first NATO country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality. The gender selective draft has been challenged in Switzerland, but the case was rejected by the Federal Supreme Court on the grounds that the specific law requiring service takes precedent over the general law forbidding sex discrimination. Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the conscription of men a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women.

The practice of conscription has been criticized by various men's rights groups, such as the National Coalition for Men, which claims that "no gender oppression is comparable". These groups have been joined on occasion by certain feminist activists. According to Joshua S. Goldstein, beginning in the 1970s "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that "the best way to insure women's equal treatment with men is to render them equally vulnerable with men to the political will of the state". Others have disagreed, however, contending that "by integrating into existing power structures including military forces and the war system without changing them, women merely prop up a male-dominated world instead of transforming it".

Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription" and continues elsewhere, stating that "any attempt to de-gender nationalism and citizenship needs to incorporate a discussion of universal male conscription". She goes on to quote feminist writer Cynthia Enloe, who argues that "there is a reason that so many states in the world have implemented military conscription laws for young men: most of those men would not join the state's military if it were left up to them to choose".

In the United States, all men must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Those who fail to register may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment. As of 2014, transgender females who are born biologically male are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted. Transgender males who are born female are not required to register but may face difficulties in receiving benefits which require registration. Currently, women are exempted from the Selective Service System as only males are required to register; this cannot be changed without Congress amending the law. The selective service has been challenged in court in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2012, and a lawsuit is currently pending appeal in the case of National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. All have argued in small or large part on the grounds of equal protection and due process on the basis of gender. Thus far all rulings have upheld the program, though on differing grounds. Professor Stephanie M. Wildman of Santa Clara Law called the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg "chilling to any advocate of full societal participation". In the ensuing congressional debate, Senator Mark Hatfield argued that: "The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal." }}


 * Hi, Thanks for putting this together; looks like a lot of work has gone into it. Unfortunately, I think that we would need to trim it for inclusion in the Conscription article. The level of detail seems too much; and I would be concerned that we're in danger of WP:COATRACKing a discussion of sexism onto the article. I would suggest that at a minimum many of the opinion quotes would need to be removed; and the latter parts seem too US centric.
 * Have we considered a separate article? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A separate article has been discussed. It's kindof in an awkward place where it may have too much detail for a section, but may not have enough to not be a stub. The US centric end part was a separate sub-section on the Selective Service, but it was suggested to remove the sub-section header and just make it part of the larger section. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Housekeeping edits
I've done a bit of housekeeping, mostly rearranging things so that the sections follow some logical order, and so there isn't a gigantic list in the middle of the article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the following sentences from the "draft dodging" section under the US. It may be repurposed elsewhere so I don't want to throw it away, but I can't really see somewhere to stick it right now, and it's unsourced anyway. The entire section save this portion is about the US, so it seems better suited to a sub-section under the US than a general section on draft dodging that has 95% of it's coverage about the US. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Central Asian Revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service. The conscription also became unpopular in Grand Duchy of Finland during the reign of Nicholas II and was suspended; instead Finland paid a levy tax, 'military millions' as compensation for abolition of conscription."


 * Libya is on the list as having conscription, but the map says no information.


 * Peru has no conscription on the map but is not on the list.


 * Eritrea is not included in the list. This source used on Sexism and conscription is saying that it is: Timothyjosephwood (talk) and here's the world fact book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/er.html 07:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Norway
The article claims No, although conscription exists legally, in practice total objectors have not been punished since 2011. The Norwegian Military claims they now have conscription for women. How is that possible if Norway doesn't have conscription? Norway also has subscription for their Civil Defence forces. And they do get punished. We do need to make a phrase that informs that many manage to avoid the service. But Norway has conscription, nevertheless. Please argue for keeping the text as it is. If no response, I will change it. Vbakke (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, please change the text, that's the point I already mentioned above for Austria. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I myself changed it now, but maybe someone is gonna revert it once more. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "And they do get punished" - Are these soldiers who voluntarily signed up and then quit? In many countries that do not have conscription, it is common to get a penalty if you quit the service after signing up. Punishing those who have voluntarily signed up does not mean there is conscription.
 * According to other sources Norway does not have conscription. Nobody is forced to serve, so the service is voluntary: http://www.dw.de/norways-military-conscription-becomes-gender-neutral/a-17995882 "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance." Norwegian civil service was reported to have ended in 2011: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541 and objectors have not been punished since 2011: http://www.bladet.no/nyheter/article5811750.ece Roopeluhtala (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They did not voluntarily sign up, no. I never voluntarily signed up.  I spent 9 years trying to escape national service in Norway, first as a student, then living overseas.  Coming back, it took them a year to realise before enlisting me for national service.  I managed to postpone the entry for one year, but that was it.  I never once volunteered.  How can anyone argue that this is not mandatory or compulsory? Vbakke (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Responding to these arguments. Firstly, the alternative service was a part of conscription, but removing does not change the main part of conscription, military service. Secondly, an article from 2011 about someone being punished and predicting that this will not happen in the future is not a source that it, in fact, ceased to occur. Even if this is true, it should logically become rather rare as a significant number of the court cases invoved people who were granted exemption from the military, but refused to perform alternative service. 85.166.127.45 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Norway has conscription, according to this article (http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/01/12/flere-ungdommer-soeker-fritak-fra-foerstegangstjeneste) 10 % of applications to be exempted from service were denied in 2013 (post removal of alternative service). Conscientious objection is not the only grounds for exemption, but it seems unlikely that none of the denied applications were for this reason. In any case, you have to apply to be exempted from service, which makes it conscription, and not all applications are accepted, which means that it is not de facto abolished. 85.166.127.45 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the article you provided: "figures on granted exemption shows that it is easy for those not wanting to serve and get away, even if they are summoned". If somebody has to apply to be exempted, that does not mean there is conscription. There is conscription in practice only if a significant amount of people are enforced to service. If you find better sources, please provide them. Roopeluhtala (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there is no reason to suppose that everyone who serves would have chosen to serve. It is not true to say they are volunteers simply because they are honest enough to not make false claims. It is true that if you claim pacifism you are very likely to be granted exemption, but it is a fallacy to assume that everyone who would prefer to have nothing to do with the military either would have (or would claim to have) pacifistic reasons. Secondly, while you are very likely to be believed if you claim pacifism, my source above showed a significant rejection rate. Thirdly, prison sentences apply if you fail to show up without having been granted exemption (per this article suspended sentence, one of about 20 cases in 2013). I'll concede that the number of cases is low, but this is not unexpected, as the military non-randomly selects who they call up. It is in their own interest to avoid the least motivated of the potential conscripts, as even if they show up they are unlikely to be the most useful recruits. Finally, I'll link this article which discusses whether conscription in Norway is genuine. While the article notes, as we both agree, that most unmotivated potential conscripts completely avoid service, it mentions that people with certain vocations are more likely to be called up even if not motivated. In closing, I'll reiterate my first point: a person, for whom none of the legal grounds for exemption apply, who serves after being ordered to do so (i.e. having been conscripted) is not a volunteer. For this reason, and the other reasons above, it is evident that Norway still has conscription. 85.166.25.161 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is also clear we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes conscription as I would say: "If somebody has to apply to be exempted, that does not mean there is conscription. There is conscription in practice only if a significant amount of people are enforced to service anyone is serving without actively volunteering." 85.166.25.161 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this definition: "There is conscription in practice if anyone is serving without actively volunteering". If one person is forcefully recruited, and 4999 out of 5000 recruits are volunteers, then the system is mainly a volunteer system. Also if someone has 4999 sheep and 1 cow, he should be called a sheep farmer, not a cow farmer.Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Was the 5000th recruit in your example conscripted? Anyway, your example is not equivalent with the case in Norway as many (a majority or significant minority of) conscripts have not volunteered (i.e. they would not be in the military if conscription did not exist). They have simply done what they have to do absent any legal right (pacifism, sports or health) to refuse. I guess a majority of those called up actually don't mind, the key point here is that it wasn't their choice (and if it were they would not necessarily have made it). This is conscription. I agree with you that the conscription in Norway is watered-down, to the extent that a majority of eligible persons avoid conscription simply by random chance. Though if you are really unlucky you may still end up in prison for refusing to serve in the military (without having volunteered first; as you pointed out above, a volunteer would often be punished for refusing to continue). We both agree that there is de jure conscription in Norway. You're arguing that the law is dormant or not enforced. I have provided evidence for court cases in 2013 (edit:2014, refuting your claim that this ended in 2011. The politicians in Norway clearly see the law as existing, seeing as they recently modified it to include all girls born in 1997 or later as eligible for conscripted service when they reach the lower age limit.85.166.25.161 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You claim that "if you are really unlucky you may still end up in prison for refusing to serve in the military". Even if someone could end up in prison, that does not mean there is conscription. There are many sources presented in this discussion, which confirm that it is easy to avoid service if someone does not want to go.  Those who do not get exempted or do no apply for exemption in time, do not get a real prison sentence, but a suspended sentence  . In countries which in practice have conscription (like Finland), total objectors are commonly sentenced to prison or home arrest. Norway is much closer to a voluntary model than conscription, so it would be false to claim that Norway has conscription. Roopeluhtala (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not volunteers. They did not approach the military and say I want to serve (some do, but far from all). Norway may have a mixed system, but conscription reamains a part of that mixed system. Norway do not punish total objectors because there is no longer an alternative service you can illegally object to. A suspended prison sentence was the normal sentence for first time offenders before the reform, only if you refused multiple times (or if it could be proven that you were deliberately trying to avoid service) were you actually imprisoned. Just because most people can game the system it doesn't mean that there isn't a system or that everyone can. I'll list this at wp:3O. 85.166.25.161 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

( Comment from uninvolved editor ) I removed this discussion from the third opinion noticeboard because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Consider the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope the current version is acceptable (If not, we should do it like for Burma and Indonesia.) Note that the earlier comments by other editors all disagreed with you. 85.166.25.161 (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You admitted yourself earlier that "Norway does not punish total objectors". If so, there is no conscription. De jure is not relevant, de facto is. Please stop vandalising the article.Roopeluhtala (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "total objector" no longer exists, as there is no alternative service. You can object to military service for pacifistic reasons. This is almost always granted (i.e. not always as demonstrated by sources post-dating yor own). You may not legally object to military service on other grounds, though completely unmotivated potential conscripts are rarely called up. Persons who would never have volunteered (but accept conscription as a duty) are routinely called up. Punisments for not showing up for conscripted service continue to apply (again demonstrated by more recent sources than your claim. I am not vandalising the article, I am editing it to reflect the view of the majority of editors who have commented on it, while, unlike your own good faith edits, attempting to address the concerns of other editors. No editor has agreed with you. 85.166.25.161 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So there's some debate on whether what Norway has fulfills the definition of "conscription". The final answer is... not for us to decide.  We have sources for both views, right?  We cannot resolve the ambiguity, so we simply state the ambiguity.  We already do the same for a few other countries on the list.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the definition of conscription? Can we agree on Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service? What is the opposite of conscription? Is that volunteer service?  By volunteering a person takes an active step to volunteer do a task.  How can someone claim that Norway has a volunteer national service? Vbakke (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "We have sources for both views, right?" There is consensus that Norway does not punish people who object the service. That means there is no enforced conscription. Unfortunately this seems to be hard to understand for some. "What is the definition of conscription?" If you do not know that, you should not be editing the article.Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources provided disagree with your claim of no punishment. A suspended prison sentence is not inconsequential. Your view on the definition of conscription is a minority view. Conscription is compulsory service. Not objecting is not the same as volunteering. A lack of conscription would mean that the only way to join the army is by volunteering. This is patently not the case in Norway, as exemplified by Vbakke above. 85.165.171.39 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is just turning silly, Roopeluhtala. We agree on that there is no consensus that Norway does punishes or not the people who object the service.  And I presume you also know the definition of rhetorical questions, so let's keep to the discussion.  Also, as a side point.  Do not confuse civil defence service with the alternative military service (siviltjeneste).  Do you agree with the definition in this article Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service, Roopeluhtala? Vbakke (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere, you can't have arbitary numbers for total objectors as a mark of whether conscription "exists" or not, where would you set the limit? 100 objectors? A thousand? Ten thousand? The fact is that conscription is written in our constitution and still enforced to this day - and has even been expanded for women. During the selection process you can absolutely get forced to sign up for a year in the armed forces after high school, I stand as a proof to that, and as do many of my other friends who didn't want to but still had no other choice. It's not voluntarily, even if some gets to dodge it. This is parallel to C-papers in Finland, where also many other manage to dodge it. As long as people get forced to serve, and the conscription institution is protected by law - the country does have conscription. See here and here. EpsonNokidding (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "During the selection process you can absolutely get forced to sign up for a year in the armed forces after high school, I stand as a proof to that, and as do many of my other friends who didn't want to but still had no other choice." When was this? According to sources objectors have not been punished since 2011: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541
 * "The Norwegian government announced on 1 July 2011 that substitute service for conscientious objectors will end later this year. According to Minister of Justice Knut Storberget, the reform will mean that conscientious objectors to military service will in the future no longer be called up for a substitute service, but will simply be exempted from military service."
 * What would have been the punishment if you had declined? If there is no punishment for objectors, there is no conscription in practice. Roopeluhtala (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be really helpful if you would not try persistently to impose your very own definition of conscription as a general standard. --Hansbaer (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of seriously misleading content
As several of the previous editors have remarked, there seem to be a lot of errors or dubious decisions in the classification of individual countries in this article and its accompanying main graphic. Moreover, these errors seems to have a definite bias toward claiming, on any available pretext, that conscription is rare. Some of the many examples include: At this point, for roughly 50% of the entries that I have checked in detail, the map is either misleading or definitely wrong!! -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In cases where "sources differ" on the current status, the map is always coloured as "no conscription" instead of re-using the "no information" colour.
 * Greenland is shown as having no armed forces when in fact it has armed forces and permanent defence bases. (The claim seems to be based on the fact that, under agreements between Denmark and Greenland, it is Denmark's responsibility to maintain these forces.)
 * Numerous countries are listed in the table and graphic as having no conscription when in fact they only suspended routine national service at the end of the Cold War, but do maintain compulsory military registration for a conscription system that can be immediately activated in times of crisis. There are too many of these to these list, but a few examples include Argentina, France, Netherlands, Germany, and Poland. Others like Czech Republic do not have a registration system, but nevertheless the law allows conscription to be immediately reintroduced in the event of war. Some of these are described correctly in the table text, but still coloured as "no conscription"; the colourist seems to think that "no national service" is the same as "no conscription", but it isn't.
 * Lithuania once suspended national service, and has subsequently reactivated it. The table correctly states this, but then both the table and the graphic continue to use the colour for "no conscription." (Incidentally, this category is very much "watch this space"; with Putin's sabre rattling, several east- and central-European countries are considering reintroduction of national service, and polls indicate that it is massively popular with their electorates.)
 * Some are just plain wrong:
 * Denmark has compulsory national service, but is listed as "no conscription" on the frankly bizarre grounds that in just one year they didn't run the lottery because the quota was already filled by volunteers. In more recent years volunteers have made up >90% of the intake; this, however, is entirely predicated on the current budget calling for a low intake and could be changed at the stroke of a pen, and in any case they are still taking draftees.
 * Norway has compulsory national service; over nine thousand draftees per year. It is listed as "no conscription" on the map and de facto no conscription in the table on the ludicrously thin pretext that an activist web site suggests that draft dodging is easy. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the point simply isn't relevant; Norway has a law for mandatory national service, and every year thousands serve.
 * People's Republic of China is listed in the table and graphic as having no conscription. This is simply false. Universal conscription in time of war is actually written into the constitution, and there is also a complicated system of compulsory national service. For some people military training is mandatory, others are at only at risk of being drafted if their local district did not meet its quotas from volunteers. The latter condition is not nationwide, but applies on a level of individual recruiting offices. Our Wikipedia article claims that in practice the quotas are always met by volunteers, but gives no cite for this. There are 3 problems with this. Firstly, this is not at all the same as not having a conscription system; it means that you could be drafted based on a bureaucrat changing a target number, or the performance of a local office. Secondly, it is simply untrue for some categories of people, who are always drafted. Thirdly, our article gives no cite for this claim, and other reputable sources seem to disagree.


 * "Numerous countries are listed in the table and graphic as having no conscription when in fact they only suspended routine national service" Suspended service means there is no compulsory service. This article is not about whether conscription exists in the law, but whether conscription is enforced (people are actually forced to the army). De jure is not relevant, de facto is. Please read the discussion above before making further claims. Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Conscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130518040804/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/background/military-international/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502020154/http://www.chinapage.com/friend/goh/beijing/greatwall/greatwall.html to http://www.chinapage.com/friend/goh/beijing/greatwall/greatwall.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015034145/http://devdata.worldbank.org:80/query/default.htm to http://devdata.worldbank.org/query/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323043307/http://www.child-soldiers.org/document/get?id=1385 to http://www.child-soldiers.org/document/get?id=1385
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150207164014/http://www.zentralstelle-kdv.de/z.php?ID=236 to http://www.zentralstelle-kdv.de/z.php?ID=236

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)