Talk:Soldier of Fortune (magazine)

POV
shouldn't these articles be written in a neutral way ?? -- 217.83.178.17 00:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? clarka 8 April 2004

NPOV compliance
This article is in serious need of a clean-up. I don't see too much activity here, so I am going to use edit summaries to explain my changes. If anyone has a problem with any of my edits, I'll be watching this talk page. Dick Clark 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice, an entire article with zero references. How about we delete it until someone states anything they can back-up?

Copyright and source
I stumbled across this article looking for something else. Just thought I'd point out at least one of the sources, specifically about the "rash of similar magazines" that SOF spawned in the 80s, came from an article about Ward Churchill's investigation of the magazine -- there is a copy at http://www.pirateballerina.com/files/soldier_of_fortune.htm

I think the wiki article could be cleaned up if some of the sources were researched and attributed. Phaid 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mr Churchills "investigation", it appears that he is somewhat upset that someone might actually have the temerity to publish a magazine critcising the left. Does freedom of speech exist only for those who hold one particular view? SoF is funded by the CIA? In the same way the "anti-war" movement was funded by the KGB in the Cold War and is now getting money from Islamists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.74.92 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Company name in infobox?
I see that the infobox carries the name "Soldier of Fortune Inc." I have several copies, though I freely admit that none of them are recent, giving the company name as "Omega Group, Ltd." Has this changed, or is it an assumption on somebody's part, perhaps remembering the late 90s syndicated TV action series that the magazine had some sort of participation in (the first season title was Soldiers of Fortune, Inc.)? Ted Watson (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The legal notices on the SOF website (http://www.sofmag.com/home/terms.html) refer as "SOLDIER OF FORTUNE MAGAZINE, INC." and made no reference to "Omega Group". However, it might have been an inaccurate corporate name setup on a legal boiler plate page. However, if there's a citation that the current publisher is Omega Group, then the Publisher line on the infobox should be changed. Dl2000 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the name of the publishing company in the infobox to Omega Group Ltd as it is commonly referenced through reliable news sources. (e.g. or ). —  Cactus Writer |   needles  12:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Men for Hire
It might be of interest to note that SOF actually stopped publishing advertisiments for "Men for Hire" in the early/Mid-1980's, upsetting some of its readership.(83.13.39.98 (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

July,2008 ediction
On the ediction of july, 2008, there's an article writen by Oliver North against agressive islam and ist hate of democracy.Agre22 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Agre22

Mercenaries in Rhodesia?
The article as of this date incorrectly claims that SOF recruited "mercenaries for the Rhodesian Bush War". This is simply not so. While SOF did actively recruit for the Rhodesian cause, foreign nationals that fought in the war were not mercenaries as defined by international law. The Geneva Convention defines a mercenary as (lifted from another wikki article): "A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" Those who found service in the Rhodesian Security Forces during the war had to join the armed forces of that country like anyone else. They were not formed into their own seperate units and were not payed at a higher rate than native born and recruited troops.  Ex-Rhodesian Security Force officers have repeatedly stated that there were NO mercenaries on their side during the war.  I have changed the body of the article to reflect this fact. Trench_Raider 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was not incorrect. All scholarly references concerning Soldier of Fortune's ads for participants in the Rhodesia war use the word mercenary. I've added two refs, but dozens can easily be be provided. It should be understood that the term "mercenary" has a much more fluid definition than the one strictly applied by the Geneva Convention. The monograph Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa: A Need for a New Continental Approach provides a great discussion on this very point: the modern definitions of mercenary. However, this article is not a discussion about the Rhodesian conflict, nor about who was or wasn't a mercenary -- but rather the simple involvement of the magazine as part of its history as discussed in reliable sources. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The definition put forward by the Geneva Convention is what defines the term rather than over-use or incorrect use by third parties. I'll take the wording of international law over the words of pundits with an agenda. Speaking of which, did you REALLY just cite Ward Churchill as a reliable source? That's a joke, right? Once again, I'll take the words of Rhodesian govermental and military policy of the time as well as that of a large number Rhodesian ex-pats in the matter over anything that clown writes on the subject. I've a strong and long standing interest in Rhodesia and the Bush War, and own oriignal copies of every SoF issue that apeared during the war years. None of the articles on the war or the calls for recruits for the Security Forces use the term "mercenary" in reference to such recruits. Finally, a strong case could be made that use of the term "mercenary" in this regard is contraversial in the same manner that such terms as "terrorist" are generally considered on Wikipedia. Thus use of the term harms the article's NPoV. We do want to be neutral here, right? As you state above, the purpose of the article is to discuss SoF's history rather than debate the nature of mecenary service. Trench_Raider 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Trench raider. You are a complete dickhead. learn some basic history before spouting off your POV.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soldier of Fortune (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930124804/http://www.sofmag.com/contact-sof to http://www.sofmag.com/contact-sof

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cover Image
Cover image is not of the September 1995 issue, but the July 1998 issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash155 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting source of information
CIA reading Room has some interesting information for editors of this page: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00845R000100180009-9.pdf Farawayman (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Donations
I will be donating as per your request. I'll be doing that, but not yet today. Have to check account and make sure I have it to spare. I know it's only $2+, but by the time they add their "share" it cames out to bit more.

Rob Courtier Cheyenne, Wyoming 72.175.44.32 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Speculative and not documented information about SOF Magazine
Much of the information that is currently on the SOF page is incorrect. Although the information has a published source, the source itself is not correct. What can one do to correct this information? I have had a scuddle back and forth with WikiDan16 that will not seem to listen to my requests. How can one clear any misconception about information on Wiki. We are looking for a way to clean up the information and lock the page from others making negative remarks. This is something that Wiki does not seem to care about. Hawktuner1 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd need to provide an equally reliable source that refutes the material in question. Bring that source (or those sources) here to this discussion to allow other editors to evaluate your sources compared to the sources currently in use to see if a consensus can be reached. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)