Talk:United States Armed Forces/Archive 4

Criticism
Sorry, but in my opinion there need to be a critisism-section! Particularly because at the present time there are a lot of very critical voices concerning the military. Furthermore, please add the original doctrine of the armed forces as an "ultima ratio". Thank you =) --111Alleskönner (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, didn't see all the sections above concerning this theme =) Nevertheless, I think that it has to be added in this article and not only in "history". --111Alleskönner (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The theme of this section would be that the United States should not have armed forces? Or would it be more along the lines of specific abuses that are already covered in different articles? Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not that they shouldn't have them, but that's what I ment: to mention some war crimes the US armed forces pursued in their history as well as the fact that originally the doctrin was to have only a small army to defense thereselfes and not to intervent into foreign affars, or abroad missions (war was the "ultima ratio" - that's very important for the article!) --111Alleskönner (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I found the lack of a criticism section very strange. I dropped by to add the recent news that has hit the airwaves regarding one troop suicide per day in 2012. There is nowhere in the article to post this information, unless a new section is created. petrarchan 47 T c 19:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A criticism section would be impossible to manage and only lead to WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP, and WP:RGW. Too big, too small, too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too macho, too PC, too expensive, not enough spent, etc., on-and-on, never ending. Completely unencyclopedic. No way.--S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What Wikipedia guideline would support the lack of criticism section? From what I have seen, criticisms are a part of Wikipedia articles. This article might have a bias problem since there is nowhere to put information that isn't positive/neutral. For instance, where would one place the news about suicide rates?  petrarchan 47 T c 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is in violation of WP:Criticism
 * "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia"  petrarchan 47 T c 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are ways to integrate criticisms other than to have a section dedicated to it. What do the editors think of these options?  petrarchan 47 T c 00:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As you have an interest in the suicide topic, I suggest you look at suicide and write up a section in that article focusing on the armed forces. Then you can add it to the "See also" section in this article.
 * But I ask you, how does the fact that suicides are a problem in society (and the military) become a criticism of the armed forces? Only one of the 3 stories you posted discusses the rate of suicide in the military and that article says it is the rate for the Army is comparable to the civilian rate. Again, if this is the case, how does the number of suicides become a criticism of the military? Because the stories simply give us sensational numbers (one suicide a day!) suggests to me that the news articles, when they simply give us raw numbers, are pushing the stories without intelligent analysis.
 * Other articles have critical aspects about the military. See, for example, Military budget of the United States (which already has a hatnote). My point above remains the same. Incorporating a criticism section here can only lead to problems.--S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Suicides are now the second most common cause of death in the US military" where would a reasonable person expect to find this information on Wikipedia? I am not going to argue the validity, it is a major news story right now, and since "US troops" redirects here, I thought this would be the article for it. You are right, a controversy section might not be the answer, I am asking where this news should be added to this or a more appropriate article. I think the recommendation to add it to the suicide article is good, but it should be mentioned in an article about troops as well, as it's specifically about them. That is why Panetta addressed the problem: "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Congress on Wednesday that he has directed all military branches "to immediately look at that situation and determine what's behind it, what's causing it and what can we do to make sure it doesn't happen."


 * From the NYT times: "The suicide rate among the nation’s active-duty military personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago, the Pentagon said Friday." petrarchan 47 T c 01:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Refocusing on whether there should be a criticism section, I submit that such a section would not be good. Consider, how would it help the article reach Featured Article status? I've listed (above) the various results that such a section would invite: soapbox, righting great wrongs, etc.. In this regard, it would be extremely unstable and long (criteria 1.e & 4.) The very fact that this (suicide) is a current news issue demonstrates that the topic is subject to change from day to day. Accordingly, such a discussion would be outside of the overall context of the article. And, again, how can the fact that suicides occur be a criticism of the military? Military personnel know and face the loss of their comrades directly.
 * Adding a personal note, I have lost 6 people from my units -- a subordinate of mine from suicide (after I retired) and 4 others, that I knew personally, from enemy action. I can tell you that the concern expressed by the command at all levels demonstrates that military people are seeking to resolve the problem. I suspect that those who wish to wave the bloody shirt of suicide in the military do so because they want to criticize the military, and not to improve Wikipedia. --S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, you could consider that some editors just want to update pages to reflect the latest news. We aren't here to judge whether the news is valid, if it's well sourced, etc., there should be no problem. Wikipedia is different from print encyclopedias in that it is up-to-the-minute current. And if, later on down the road, it turns out that this story was irrelevant to the article it can be removed or moved elsewhere. I am sure there are many who share your views that a criticism section is more than inconvenient, but it's Wikipedia's views that are to be considered, not our own. What does Wikipedia say about criticism? That it is equally as valid as the positive or neutral aspects of a subject. This place is all about facts, not spin. petrarchan 47 T c 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider WP:ISNOT, specifically WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am not opposed to presenting facts, but cherrypicking facts for collection in a criticism section -- that relies on the hot-topic, hot-button issues being spun by politicians and other self-interested advocates -- is not not encyclopedic. The Armed Forces of the United States is but an instrument of national power, along with economic power, diplomatic power, and informational power. This article should provide an elementary understanding of the US military as one of those instruments. Getting bogged down or side-tracked with a criticism section won't help any reader.--S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What article would you see this information best fitting? I have already said maybe a criticism section isn't the best idea for this article. But there needs to be room for news that is other-than-positive. Otherwise you can see the bias problem, I am sure. This is far from cherry picking. This is news that people have been talking about and that has made a big splash in the media for the past few months. To decide that the news is spin by politicians is beyond the scope of Wikipedia editors. We're here to update articles with reliable sources. The response at this page is alarming, truthfully. petrarchan 47 T c 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I must say I feel there is too much editorial opinions on this article. I think we need to stick to facts.Rick Evans (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we mention war crimes the military has committed? It probably has committed some. Danotto94 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give a single reliable source that says the US Military has committed war crimes not that an individual within the military has committed warcrimes, but that the US military has committed warcrimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.180.11 (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already this article, United States war crimes. -- GB fan 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is Counting?
Do we want to address an issue of counting? In the section on Commissioned Officers, it starts off with "There are five common ways to receive a commission...", yet it then lists seven bulleted points. Just wondering. WesT (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten it, as that sentence was unsourced. I removed the fact about 5 common ways of getting a commission.  -- GB fan 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent fix. Thanks! WesT (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Equipment
I just added a vehicles section which is incomplete. There also needs to be a weapons subsection.username 1 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not needed, as these shpuld already be covered in the respective service articles, and on thier list pages. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed these sections again. The US has far too many vehicles and equipemnt to even attempt a brief list here. The edits of the IPs show that we won't be able to keep the lists small either. It's better to not have them at all. - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Though i disagree that there was any problem with the last list here is a list format that i am sure we could agree upon. username 1 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No list is needed at all - they are all covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need more tables in this articles, but I think it needs a brief description of the capabilities of the United States Armed Services. I'm talking no more than three short paragraphs that goes over some of its most important/widely used/popular equipment.Rick Evans (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The US military has fewer personnel than China. The US military has significantly more materiel than China. This article misses the major point of US military dominance, her materiel advantage. Table or paragraph doesn't matter, and we shouldn't list different types of helicopters. But a top-level list of aircraft, warships, supply ships, fighting vehicles, supply vehicles, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads would add a lot to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.117.65 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

SIPRI report on arms exports
I've gone through SIPRI's report and website and it's still not clear to me how it calculates arms exports. I'm guessing SIPRI is using dollar values to compute its "volume" of arms exports, which conveniently makes the U.S. look bad. The U.S. exports high-priced weapons systems, such as Aegis-equipped destroyers and Apache gunships, to its allies, but in terms of actual volume, meaning number of bullets to number of bullets, I seriously doubt the U.S. ranks anywhere near the top. And it's cheap bullets, made by countries like Russia and China, in the hands of sociopaths in Third World trouble spots that are doing most of the maiming and killing in the world today. Who supplied the arms in the world's most recent genocides (Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korean famine, ongoing Iraqi civil war)? It's mostly cheap, ubiquitous Soviet-era crap. Please strike the SIPRI data from the article until its method of determining "volume" can be elucidated. If SIPRI is using dollar value, then update the entry to say that the U.S. exports the highest dollar amount of weapons in the world. Then the intelligent reader can surmise that maybe the U.S. is simply exporting $40,000 velvet-covered toilet seats and not necessarily the world's majority of land mines, NATO rounds, and other items used in Third World mayhem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.185.50 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Role of Women
This section is the same size as the history section. It's way over the top. This should be much shorter with a link to a separate article. Lets not forget that in 230 years nearly 2 million men have died fighting for the US. Recognizing women is great but this is way overboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.101.20 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The budget of the Armed forces actually needs to be looked up.
The current budget that has been posted on the page are budgets that were given to the Department as a whole during 2015. Except the armed forces is actually a branch of the Department of the defense. There are other organizations within the Department of defense that are included in the Department of Defense's budget. One of those organizations is DARPA which accounts for $2.97 Billion. So we need to actually look at the specific amount allotted to the armed forces if we want to include the budget in this article other wise we should delete because currently it is misleading and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LasPo rocks (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States Armed Forces. 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/20150905060541/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/CompletedBSR2015-Final.pdf to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/CompletedBSR2015-Final.pdf

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 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Military Historical Record Has An Error...
In many places, Wikipedia has competing and/or incomplete information about our military branches. It is widely known that the Continental Army is not the oldest continuously established (as it exists today) branch of the U.S. military. The Continental Army is not the current United States Army. It is well known that President Washington and other founding fathers were worried about having a very large standing army existing inside the homeland so, the Continental Army was disbanded after the cessation of hostilities during the period. This information concerning the seniority of the current branches of the military is supported right here in Wikipedia.

As someone who served in the Marine Corps color guard for several years I witness the placement of colors in formation based on the order of their seniority. Everyone one knew this. Everything in the military has ceremonial and historic significance attached to it and that is the proof you use to substantiate the seniority of the branches. Counter arguments and supporting data welcomed. [Ref: http://www.revwar75.com/ob/newburgh.htm] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinklogik (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One man's opinion... For another very well researched opinion on this matter please see Millett's excellent history of the Marine Corps "Semper Fidelis". Page 24 indicates that the last Continental Marine left the service in September 1783 when the last Continental Navy vessel, Alliance was authorized to be sold by Congress. Both the Navy and Marine Corps ceased to exist at that time. However, your own source and some others state that one regiment of the Army remained active to guard the western frontier and some Army artillerymen remained at West Point to guard the armory there. Additionally, Millett states that the Frigate Act of 1794 provided for the organizational structure of the six frigates authorized under the act. Each frigate would be authorized one detachment of Marines with one officer and between 44 and 54 enlisted to serve as ship's guards. On 11 July 1798, in response to the Quasi-War with France, Congress finally passed "An Act for establishing a Marine Corps" that organized the Department of the Navy's Marines as a "Corps of Marines". The modern Marine Corps dates from that act.
 * There are always going to be discussions about "Who is the Oldest". This issue was put to rest by the Department of Defense years ago. Each person that served with a particular armed service is justifiably proud of their armed service's history. Wikipedia articles on the U.S military order of precedence reflect the Department of Defense order of precedence in it's articles and these are referenced.Cuprum17 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations


 * References used

Dated graphic
The graphic File:Active duty end strength graph.png is 13 years out of date. I looked at the editor who created it, but they haven't been active since 2013. It would be nice if someone could provide a more current graph.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the "Personnel in each service" section not in any order?
The chart is not arranged by any specific order. If no one objects, I will rearrange it by total/branch. Thanks L3X1 Complaints Desk 02:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the branches are in order of precedence. Why do you think they are out of order? Read the paragraph about order of precedence and you will understand why the chart is ordered as it is. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Civil War passage in intro
I would like to rephrase this passage " It played an important role in the American Civil War, where leading generals on both sides were picked from members of the United States military. " to " It played an important role in the American Civil War, continuing to serve as the Armed Forces of the federal government, although a number of its officers resigned to join the Confederate Army and Navy." Given the contentious nature of the topic I would like to get consensus before making the change.Garuda28 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the change, as the Union was the United States, and the US Armed Forces was actively a participant fighting the confederacy.Garuda28 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Manpower numbers 7 years out of date
I attempted to update the numbers for total manpower, which is off by more than 100,000, and by branch, but the edits were undone. Recommend that the correct numbers be updated from DMDC. (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.117 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Armed Forces. 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/20160420171221/http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/CompletedBSR2015-Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025062715/http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/mj97/ppp.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/mj97/ppp.pdf

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) 15:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief
For the Commander-in-Chief section there is no dispute that the President is the commander in chief, but it seems that there is some disagreement over weather the title should be listed as President or Commander-in-Chief. I am of the opinion that the title listed should be President, as that is the title of the President of the United States, who does not hold the official title of Commander-in-Chief (although they may informally be referred to as), but rather the Presidency has the role of commander in chief as one of its responsibilities.

Looking at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution it states "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..." This unquestionably gives him the role as commander in chief, but does not appear to give the President an official title of Commander-in-Chief. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii)

Under the "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT", with regard to weather the President is the commander in chief of the Air Force the document states " that the President is Commander in Chief of all the armed forces of the United States" and "Under the Constitution, the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy is the supreme military commander charged with the responsibility of protecting and defending the United States." I am interpreting this to say that the President is the commander in chief, but that the title and position of the commander in chief is the President. (https://www.justice.gov/file/20626/download)

Furthermore the military chain of command lists their commander in chief as the President, not titled Commander-in-Chief. Furthermore, JP 01 consistently refers to the President 138 times in the document, including referring to "President John Kennedy", as his official title. Conversely Commander in Chief is used only twice and always as a qualifier to the President's power ("For example, the President, as Commander in Chief") and not as a stand alone title. a quote from General Vessey used in the document is “[My job is] to give the President and the Secretary of Defense military advice before they know they need it.” He refers to the President, and not the Commander-in-Chief, as that is not their official title. In Chapter II the organizational chart for Notional Multinational Command Structure refers to the President of the United States, not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States. The same goes with the standard Chain of Command organizational chart. Chapter II(1)(b)(1) outlines the roles of the President with regards to the Armed Forces, not to the Commander-in-Chief (as a title, not a role). (http://dde.carlisle.army.mil/lll/dsc/ppt/l19_2branches.pdf) (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf)

This is in contrast when George Washington was commissioned as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution, in that he not only held the power of commander in chief, but his title was also Commander-in-Chief. The current presidency holds the power and role of commander in chief, but no official additional title of Commander-in-Chief. (https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/commission.html)

Summarizing my position there is no question that the President holds the role of commander in chief, and is even informally called it - however the official title of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is the President of the United States. For the infobox, Commander1_title should be President for all the reasons stated above - specifically that Commander-in-Chief is not an official title for the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.Garuda28 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support your line of reasoning. Thank you, you argue your position very well. The constant changing of the infobox in this article and others of the Armed Forces is getting a little tiresome. Let's settle this and move on. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The person's title is resident, as shown in the founding documents. So the Commander1 at this point in time must say President Trump --Frmorrison (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - if I'm reading this right. I think the first line "Commander-in-Chief" should remain and be linked to the Commander-in-Chief page (directly to #President of the US) - (why else have that article?) Following that,the next line should be the title "President", (preceding the person's name) linked to the POTUS page and then the name of the president, linked to his BLP. This gives readers auick access to all 3 relevant articles, provding the most infornation, (which is why we are here) and doing it this way is not incorrect. But that said, my main concern is that whatever is decided, it be applied identically to all 5 military beach page infoboxes. - the WOLF  child  21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it must be equally applied to all infoboxes, hence why i've placed links on all the pertinent articles talk pages to here. I understand what you are saying but that is inconsistent with the template format, which requires the Commander1_title to be the title of the individual holding the position. Commander in chief is not the proper title for the President in this place. It is no different than the president being referred to as the Head of State, Head of Government, or Chief Executive. They, like commander in chief, all describe his role but are not his title. As to why the Commander in Chief article, it exists for the same reason that there are articles for heads of state and government - to explain what they are and show how different countries do it.Garuda28 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To sum up, when military persons address the commander-in-chief, they don't say "Mr. Commander-in-Chief" they say "Mr. President". 'nuf said!!Cuprum17 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the president is the " Commander-in-Chief", and is referred to as such by gov't and military officials in public and on official correspondence. If you read my !vote fully, you'll see that I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, just that by linking "CiC" to the "CiC#uspotus" article, then have the title president, linked to potus and finally the person's name, linked to their BLP, is not incorrect or improper, and provides the most info possible, which is what we want to do here. - the WOLF  child  19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Typically it is used in an informal context, and not as his title in those statements, like how some say the POTUS is the Chief Executive (although that happens far less frequently. Since Commander-in-chief is in the intro body of the POTUS article, I don't feel it is nessesary (or proper) to list it as the title. Garuda28 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This doesn't need to an "either/or scenario" ("C-I-C vs POTUS"). The title "C-i-C" has been, and is used in an official capacity. It is not incorrect to refer to the President as such here in these infoboxes. The format of these infoboxes has been well established for years, and there is a great deal implied consent that goes with that. The way the 5 branch infoboxes (as well as the similar infobox on this page) are set-up now provides the most information to the reader. I don't see the benefit in removing relevant info, especially for what appears to be an unnecessary, but significant change. There would need to be a very clear consensus to implement this change. - the WOLF  child  18:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a citation to doctrine or an official document that backs up that CIC is a title he uses? It is either or, if CIC is not an official title. Garuda28 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, it's not an "either/or" scenario as you would seem to have. Even the title of this section is "President vs. C-i-C", when really he is "President and C-i-C", just as the infoboxes indicate. You ask for citations... well, you have already provided plenty above, it's just that you have subjectively interpreted them to suit your own ends. The Constitution (my cite as well) says the President is "C-I-C" of the armed forces. What else do you need? That's why in the Chain of command, we have them listed in order; The C-i-C is President 'X', then SecDef (a civilian) is Mr./Mrs./Ms. 'Y', then you have the Unified Combatant Commanders, Combatant Commander - General/Admiral 'Z'. Administratively, they go thru the Branch Secretaries - Mr./Mrs./Ms. 'A', then the Joint Chiefs, Chairman - GEN/ADM 'B', Vice-Chair - GEN/ADM 'C', Chiefs of Staff/CNO/Commandant - GEN/ADM 'D'. As drawn out as it is, my point is that there is a defined chain of command, each position has it's title, and the person in that position has their own title, be it Chief of Staff-General-John Smith, Secretary of Defence-Mrs.-Jane Smith, or Commander-in-Chief-President-Donald Trump. It's not "either/or". They aren't mutually exclusive. They are all titles, necessary to define position and rank. That is what the navboxes spell out right now. That's why they shouldn't be changed to say he isn't Commander-in-Chief when in fact, he is. - the WOLF  child  20:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is it's not president and cic, but rather president is cic. The diffence in the other examples is that those (like combatant commanders) is a position. CIC isn't a position, but rather one of the many roles of the president. Its the same that it's not Presient and Head of State, but President is Head of state (or Head of government, chief executive, etc.). In some states, like china the Preident isn't CIC, but rather a different position. The condition doesn't establish a seperate title or position for CIC, but just vests the power and role of CIC with the president. Garuda28 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "...CIC isn't a position..." - Oh, I disagree. It is a position, in fact the very top position in the chain of command of the armed forces, which is why it is in that section of the navbox. Look, I (respectfully) just don't think we're going to agree on this. But that's not what is important here. At issue is whether or not to change the existing format of the infobox to remove the title "C-I-C" and the link to the CiC article. I strongly feel that would be wrong and that that navboxes should remain as they are (as of my writing this post). And as I said, to implement the change you're seeking, you will need a clear consensus to do so. Likely something beyond local consensus as well, as these are long-standing, well established and high-trafficked articles. If the change you seek to make is indeed made, it will very likely be challenged again (and again) over time. - the WOLF  child  22:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's at the top of the military command structure then why do all the command charts and military doctrine I provided say "President" and not commander in chief. Please provide a citation for this statement. Garuda28 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In this infobox, CiC is more important than POTUS.  Nitpicking about "official" title doesn't help the reader understand the connection; having CiC does.  In this context, CiC is COMMONNAME.  In the current version, "President" is clearly linked, and having both gives the whole story very easily and simply.  There's zero benefit to the reader in removing CiC.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * however the infobox is asking for an official title. CIC is not common name either, no one has provided sources to say that it is.Garuda28 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "the infobox is asking"? Let "the infobox" comment here then.  CiC is common name when the chain of command is being expressed; sources use it, and that's how we hear about it.  Readers understand CiC in this context better than POTUS.  No benefit in letting "the infobox" limit our ability to improve the article.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some evidence the CIC is the common name? If I'm not mistaken common name only applies to article titles, not content. Garuda28 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Commander in Chief is a stand-alone article about the common name for the supreme position in a military command structure. Americans may know this is their president, but many others won't.  To inform them, we put in CinC, the common understandable name for this position, and then add POTUS and Trump, making it clear to all.  Removing CinC just removes information from the reader.  The proposal here is to remove beneficial information because... "the infobox" tells us too?  Please, no.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea is to remove something that is not a title in favor of a title. The infobox format is for Commander1_title. It is clearcut. Commander in chief is not a title. Garuda28 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The debate of whether "Commander-in-Chief" is a title or not aside (as I said, I'm not debating that any further), "this idea" is to provide as much relevant information as possible. The current format does that. It also includes the title "President", which is what you want, no? As for any changes, as I've said, the current and long-standing status of these boxes has been determined by consensus. There is no clear consensus to change them. Don't know what else there to say. - the WOLF  child  18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Armed Forces. 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/20130629172147/http://www.goarmy.com/about/service-options/enlisted-soldiers-and-officers/enlisted-soldier.html to http://www.goarmy.com/about/service-options/enlisted-soldiers-and-officers/enlisted-soldier.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019001138/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0912.pdf to http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0912.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114210237/http://doni.daps.dla.mil/US%20Navy%20Regulations/Chapter%2012%20-%20Flags,%20Pennants,%20Honors,%20Ceremonies%20and%20Customs.pdf to http://doni.daps.dla.mil/US%20Navy%20Regulations/Chapter%2012%20-%20Flags,%20Pennants,%20Honors,%20Ceremonies%20and%20Customs.pdf
 * Added tag to http://afrotc.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/afman36-2203-dc-manual.pdf

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) 07:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States Armed Forces. 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/20111025080903/http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+45+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28113%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 to http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+45+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28113%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124210305/http://www.jcs.mil//content/files/2012-01/010612094032_The_JS_Org_Chart_as_of_Jan_2012.pdf to http://www.jcs.mil//content/files/2012-01/010612094032_The_JS_Org_Chart_as_of_Jan_2012.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/military-looking-for-more-tech-savvy-recruits--1341883.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622185437/http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/contents/contents.html to http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/contents/contents.html
 * Added tag to http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/rg1301.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505023014/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1012.pdf to http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630032514/http://defendamerica.mil/articles/sep2005/a092705wm3.html to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sep2005/a092705wm3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620074416/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/women_chron/chron1970s.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/women_chron/chron1970s.html

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) 00:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Numbers do not add up
In the table entitled Personnel by Service, the numbers do not add up. I came to this page to look for the simple answer to the question "how many people are employed by the United States Military?" The numbers in the table do not add up, so I have no idea what the answer to my question is. Setting aside civilian employees and reservists, I would expect the number of people in the military (1,347,106) to be the sum of officers and enlisted (1,137,916 + 236,826 = 1,374,742). This implies that some (1,374,742 - 1,347,106 = 27,636) officers and / or enlisted are not accounted for somehow or perhaps that officers and enlisted are not mutually exclusive categories, i.e., it is possible to be both an officer and an enlisted person at the same time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the categories entirely. Are Officers and Enlisted not included in Military? That would mean that the total would be 1,347,106 + 1,137,916 + 236,826 = 2,721,848.

Aha, perhaps the total is Male plus Female 1,219,510 + 210,485 = 1,429,995. OK, that should add up to one of the other totals. Ooops. That is not the case. Well, perhaps our enlightened military is counting gender neutral people separately. No, that can't be. Male + Female is higher than either the number of military or the number of officers + enlisted. That would imply that the military counts gender neutral people as both male and female, leading to double counting. No, that can't be. The military is supposed to me precise. Hmmm, the only logically consisted answer is that Military is a separate category, neither Officers nor Enlisted. In that case, our total would be 2,721,848 of whom 1,219,510 are male 210,485 are female and 1,291,853 are gender neutral. Now we know that there are more males than gender neutral people in our society, so this implies that with a voluntary military (no draft), that joining the military is far more attractive to gender neutral people than males. OK, that just does not make any sense at all.

Well, apologies for my whimsical humor, but I think you get my point. The numbers do not add up. Well, once someone has been able to sort this all out, I have two further questions. First, where do the mercenaries* (Blackwater and others) fit in? Are they part of Civilian employees? Or do they account for the discrepancies in the totals? Second, what about the veterans administration employees? They are a necessary component of our past war efforts, so logically they should be included.


 * Or if you prefer, "loyal Americans" as the founder of Blackwater calls them. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.64.210 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation now restricted?
One of the citations (#5), is now behind a pay-to-view restriction, and there's no (free) way to view the source for the claim. What's to be done in this case? If it is required that anyone who wants to verify needs to pay to see the information, what's to stop me from citing a bunch of things and generating money from the wikipedia community of fact-checkers? Or is this how I'm to finance my lavish lifestyle? :D Moisés Naím. "Megaplayers Vs. Micropowers". ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3476 ) Retrieved 18 December 2007. ~ender 2009-09-09 10:48:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.218.100 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sixth Branch of US Armed Forces - Space Force
First off, I want to state that I DO NOT support Donald Trump. Anyways, Today on the Department of Defense official YouTube channel, a video was uploaded where Pence announces the creation of a sixth branch of the Armed Forces: Space Force. I don't know enough about programming to change it on the page but, if someone agrees with me, I think it should be added to the list of Armed Forces branches? Daniel Klimovich (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich


 * Addition is inappropriate because it is just a proposal and nothing concrete. Garuda28 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump and Pence can announce whatever they like, but until Congress passes it, there is no Space Force, and last I heard Congress didnt seem to interested. - the WOLF  child  23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Space Force is very far from being an actual branch. It's really just an idea that got a ton more media attention once the President said it - it's actually been proposed a while back. But regardless, an act of Congress would be needed for the Space Force to be created. Jak525 (talk) 23:38, Saturday, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Ranks
I think the ranks listed in the infobox is a bit of a mess. First off: The branches are listed again, with links. I don't believe that this is necessary, since they are already listed with links just above. Secondly Warrant Officer (United States), is listed four times all with the same link. In both cases I would think that qualifies for breaking MOS:LINK. There should some change. Personally, I propose to only have links like: Army officer, Army enlisted, (etc.) and then having the last be Warrant officer ranks (Or something like that). Suggestions? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you are talking about. I can make a few adjustments, but warrant officers rank higher than enlisted/non-commissioned officers and lower than commissioned officers, so I think it should stay where it is, and not be moved to the bottom. Neovu79 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get what you mean. What about this?

Commissioned officer
 * Army officer
 * Marine Corps officer
 * Navy officer
 * Air Force officer
 * Coast Guard officer

Warrant officer
 * Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard warrant officer

Enlisted Jak525 (talk) 04:30, Friday, September 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Army enlisted
 * Marine Corps enlisted
 * Navy enlisted
 * Air Force enlisted
 * Coast Guard enlisted


 * The "Warrant Officer" section doesn't look particularly uniform. Additionally, some of the "[service]-Officer" and "[service]-Enlisted" links go to the same page. How about;

Warrant officer
 * Army warrant officer
 * Marine Corps warrant officer
 * Navy warrant officer
 * Air Force warrant officer officer
 * Coast Guard warrant officer


 * Each service links to a service-specific section on the Warrant Officer (United States) article. Also, the order should remain;
 * Officer
 * Warrant Officer
 * Enlisted.
 * - wolf  05:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks even better. What does everyone else think? --Jak525 (talk) 08:29, Saturday, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

sums
"Personnel by service" Army Enlisted+Officer does not sum up to military, same with males and females. The figures are corrupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.92.87 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Distinct
"The U.S. military today is gradually becoming a separate warrior class, many analysts say, that is becoming increasingly distinct from the public it is charged with protecting." Benjamin (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...And? - wolf  23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , is this something you want to add to the article? I am not sure why you put this here. ~ GB fan 23:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Where should it go and how should it be worded? Benjamin (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's really just the opinion of a group of academics who are less connected to the average American. It's strange that the article was comparing Fayetteville to a college town, as if the college town was representive of America. They usually aren't. There is a great cultural divide in the US, but it's not between the military and civilian worlds: It's between academic and cultural elites who live in very large cities mostly on the coasts, and on college campuses, who have almost no contact witn the average American, especially those living in slums in their own large cities. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's a tremendously loaded and biased assessment, one that assumes academics whose JOB it is to compare these populations are just not doing their job, and also assumes the majority of Americans don't live in cities near the coast, when they actually do. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That actually isn't what I said, but you either know that already, or your comprehension skills aren't as good as you think they are. As to "loaded and biased", that was exactly my thought on reading the article. I simply expressed it in a similar tone. I knew it would get exactly that response too, just not from whom it would come. Thanks for clearing that up. - BilCat (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose minor change to consensus - Space Force
Given the DoD's legislative proposal to congress I want to propose a new section to the article to address this. I have been previously against addition because there has been nothing concrete, but I believe that the legislative proposal has changed the environment slightly enough that we should address this:

Space Force proposal
On March 1st, 2019, the Department of Defense sent a proposal to Congress that would establish the United States Space Force as an independent military service within the Department of the Air Force. If approved, this would become the sixth military service branch to be created. Garuda28 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I meant to add this Sunday night, but got distracted by the posts in the section above. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019
Richard V. Spencer is no longer the Acting Secretary of Defense. Mark Esper was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn-in as the permanent Secretary. The infobox should be updated accordingly. 70.29.38.15 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Masum Reza 📞 21:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019
Since there is a new branch in the United States Military that has been added to the Department of Defense, it clearly needs to be added to this specific page. Trump has declared United States Space Force the newest branch of our military. Please add it onto this page. Thank you! 2604:2D80:5507:1100:4555:E941:CB12:5227 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Space Command is already mentioned in the article, and also has its own article at United_States_Space_Force RudolfRed (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Space Command has been activated; however, United States Space Force does not exist as Congress has not yet approved its existence. Many congressonal members question the need for a separate armed service in space. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

US Armed forces designated as a terrorist organization
Give me any good reason why this well sourced information and category shouldn't be in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&type=revision&diff=894814046&oldid=894800549 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a trivial footnote in the history of the armed forces of the US. not everything that the US armed forces have done or were called deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article about them, and certainly not in the lead. Attack Ramon (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a relatively minor detail - definitely not fitting for the lead. Maybe a small mention in the history section with the context that it was done in retaliation for the U.S.'s designation of the IRGC would suffice.Garuda28 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the lead. It probably does belong and if done the way it is done at United States Central Command that would solve the problem. ~ GB fan 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Source talks about the US military, not only USCC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Garuda28. Put it in context as a retaliatory measure used by Iran, one or two sentences should suffice in the history section; however, it is definitely not significant enough for lead material. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about the U.S. military as a whole and your controversial statement definitely is not significant enough to place in the primary article. Something like that should probably be placed in the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present) article. Neovu79 (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The designation is about the US military as a whole, so how can it not belong here? Thats what this article is about. Has nothing to do with the American-led intervention in Iraq. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, It's not. https://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-officially-labels-us-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/ Attack Ramon (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is: "Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a bill that labels all U.S. military forces as terrorist, state TV reported, a day after Washington ratcheted up pressure on Tehran by announcing that no country would any longer be exempt from U.S. sanctions if it continues to buy Iranian oil. The bill is a step further from the one last week, when lawmakers approved labelling just U.S. troops in the Middle East as terrorist, in response to the U.S. terrorism designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guard earlier this month."... so its not only USCC but the entire US military are now designated as "terrorist" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Serious question: Does Iran designating the US as a state sponsor of terrorism actually matter in a significant way? Is this designation going to affect the US's relationship with other nations such as those in NATO, or other allies? Will it lead to arms embargoes, etc? If it does not really matter in the large scheme of things, then it probably doesn't need to be mentioned at all. If there are some consequences, such as treatment of captured US servicemen, then a minor mention somewhere would be warranted. If, however, it is seriously going to affect US relations with the rest of the world's nations, then it would deserve prominent coverage. But those answers would need to be covered by reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Iran is a sovereign nation and it has designated another nations armed forces as "terrorist", we have RS that has reported on this, so it belongs in a Wikipedia article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If a consensus has not been reached, you are not allowed to add this to the main page. Neovu79 (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are 4 people supporting it in the way I did here:, 1 opposes it mostly in the lead and made the false claim that its not about the entire US military (I proved that above to be inaccurate) and 1 (you) who mad the inaccurate claim that it didn't belong in this article and claimed it belongs in an article about US war in Iraq (wtf?) There is no valid argument for your removal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it WP:CIVIL here, I'm not the type of person who enjoys cursing in a forum because it can sometime lead unintended misrepresentation of context. I made my recommendation based on the historical relationship with Iraq and Iran. Now if that WP:GF is not correct, I'm fine with that. Let's move on. If the United States Armed Forces didn't have such a vast history and many different branches of service, I would have no problem adding that to the main page. But this article bifurcates and splits into dozens different articles, like the Military history of the United States and because of this, it should remain a cursory summary of the armed forces as a whole. Let's see if we can come to some compromise here. Something like terrorism is a sensitive subject for a lot of people around the world. I would say that the general consensus is that when someone mentions the U.S. Armed Forces, they are not thinking terrorism, unless one's views align with Iran. What other nations label the U.S. military as terrorists? Are any other militaries from other countries, like Britain, Germany and Russia, also terrorists and by whom? Is the U.S. Armed Forces recognized as terrorists by NATO and other countries that adhere to the international laws and the Geneva Convention? Neovu79 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We follow what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. RS says Iran has designated the entire US military armed forces as terrorist in response to further US sanctions on Irans oil industry. This article is about the entire US armed forces, I added a small text about this in the history section, not in the lead and not a long text, exactly as the majority here supported, yet despite this you removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources publish information on the US military every day. We don't include them all in this article because we can't, for various reasons, especially WP:NOTNEWS. That means we have.to make editorial decisions about what is relevant and what is not relevant, hopefully based on the importance assigned by those reliable sources. So again, what relevance does Iran's declaration have? Until that question can be answered per my questions above, I'm totally opposed to its mention here. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping you from adding other relevant information. This isn't a small non notable news reporting, this is a sovereign nation declaring something about the US armed forces, officially labeling it as terrorist. It is very notable, and I added it with a very small text, not in the lead. I see that both you and Neovu79 are Americans and you want to "protect" your country but your doing it in the wrong way. You can not censor Wikipedia just because you don't like the information.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reevaluating my stance. I had originally stated that I thought it could go in.  What is the significance of this declaration?  Will it make any impact on the US military outside of Iran?  Just because something is reported in a reliable source that doesn't mean that fact must go into an article.  Just because a sovereign nation makes a declaration about another sovereign nation that doesn't mean it has to go into an article.  There needs to be a reason it makes a difference and right now there doesn't seem to be any reason to add it.  If that changes then we reevaluate and consensus might change.  ~ GB fan 20:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I too have had second thoughts on this. I resent the statement made by you (Supreme Deliciousness); "I see that both you and Neovu79 are Americans and you want to "protect" your country but your doing it in the wrong way." Viewing your user page I see no information whatsoever about who you are and where you are from; so you call a couple of users out for being "American" yet do so anonymously. Change my consensus opinion to not supporting inclusion in the article at all. Very minor effect on the overall history of the U.S. Armed Forces and should not be included at all. Any inclusion would give undue weight about the incident in the article. Put it in the Military history of the United States article where it belongs. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo the sentiments made by my fellow editors above. That statement was not called for, and I have also come to the conclusion that it is to insignificant to warrant inclusion in this article. Garuda28 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can not censor Wikipedia just because you don't like the information. I'd be remiss if I did not remind Supreme Deliciousness, that Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS a newspaper. Notability of WP:EVENT events, especially one that will generate controversy, must reach general community consensus via discussion before it can be added. Neovu79 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that both you and Neovu79 are Americans and you want to "protect" your country but your doing it in the wrong way. I also must say that I am offended that you would attack BilCat and myself is such manor as it goes against WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Not once did BilCat and I question your edit based on the region of the world you live in, and I expect that you please show us the same courtesy. Neovu79 (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A major country labeling an organization as terrorist is notable and should be included in this article, as is usually done in most other articles. See Basij as a specific example, and pretty much every article in Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States. Why should this article be excluded? This article should follow WP:NPOV and not give undue weight to positive views of the United States military. -73.235.166.236 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't give undue weight to negative views of the United States either. "Iran is a major country" does not meet NPOV either. Again, Wikipedia doesn't determine the importance of information, but that is determined by reliable sources. Present reliable neutral sources that ascribe importance, and we'll include it. Don't, and it'll be be excluded. Now, if Iran and and the US get into a shooting war, this declaration may well have a big influence on what happens in such a war, and that would merit its inclusion, but only if supported by reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If I may interject for a moment with my two cents: I'd say it deserves a mention on Wikipedia so long as it is corroborated by reliable sources, but this article is too broad and general a place for it to be mentioned, since there's no good place on the page for it to be fitted in. I'd say a more appropriate article to mention it on would be one that is more specific and focused, like the article on U.S.-Iranian diplomatic relations. Even there it should be included in a way commensurate with its importance in the grand scheme of things. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Listing two departments
After another user brought it to my attention, I've come to the conclusion that listing both "Department of Defense" and "Department of Navy"/"Air Force"/"Army" in the infobox for each branch under the "Command structure" field is a bit redundant and superfluous. For brevity's sake (and that of wp:overlink/wp:concise), we should just list the immediate one, that is Department of the Navy/Army/Air Force, since clicking the link to those will tell you that those departments are part of the DOD. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve given it a little though. I can see the benefit of helping people realize that they are all a part of the DoD, but you’re right that there are other ways that happens as well. I’m not opposed to the idea. Garuda28 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020
Please change "The Marine Corps was established by act of said Congress on 10 November 1775." to "The Marine Corps was established by an act of the Second Continental Congress on 10 November 1775." because "said" make the sentence less easily quotable and less internet searchable. Johnrembik (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Majavah (t/c) 13:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I.R. Iran designation of the US Armed Forces
The Persian Parliament has recently announced that the U.S. Armed Forces is now a terrorist group. Link -69.157.124.90 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A massive discussion thread on this topic occurred above. Garuda28 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This is another declaration, as the first one was last April. There will probably be more. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request 25JAN20
Can the Coast Guard's actual seal (instead of the service "mark") be added to the image at the upper right of this page? The image can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard#/media/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Coast_Guard.svg

The composite image can then be re-labeled as "Branch Seals of the U.S. Armed Forces." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndjmr03 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: All of the other services, except for the Space Force, actually are using their service marks and not service seals. When the Space Force's service mark is released I would anticipate that gets added as well. Garuda28 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force
Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Spacing issue
There’s a weird spacing issue in the infobox between “Coast Guard warrant officer” and “Coast Guard enlisted”. I checked the source code and the infobox template’s source but I couldn’t find anything wrong. Anybody know what’s up? Jak525 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Status of CSM Troxell
The Wikipedia article says Troxell has been temporarily reassigned to the position of Special Assistant to the Vice Director of the Chief of Staff. Even if temporary, reassignment, I believe, would mean that the position of Senior Enlisted Adviser to the Chairman would be vacant; perhaps in the infobox it could say "Vacant (previous incumbent suspended)". Thoughts? Jak525 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020
The US Space Force was established pursuant to US law in December 2019. Please add it to all lists of US armed forces, and into the precedence at the end of the article. The US Space Force is authorized a reserve, but it has not yet been established by regulations. 2600:1700:A150:E860:84E:D0D1:8B10:C1E6 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s been added to all appropriate lists. Reserve hasn’t been authorized though and order of precedence hasn’t been clarified. Garuda28 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rank tables
(et al) - I was wondering, (now that the officer, warrant and enlisted tables are collapsed), will readers miss them? The boxes with the 'show' links seem quite small and easy to pass by.

Not that I take issue with you for collapsing them in the first place however, they were too unwieldy to begin with. They look like templates that should be at the bottom of the page. Perhaps using a different table (or creating one) would be a solution. Thoughts? Cheers - wolf  04:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really good to hear from you again – you've been missed. I think you bring up a really good point. My initial thoughts was that it would be a pretty huge omission to not have a comparative rank chart on the armed forces page, but with six services (all with their own, or soon to be own, insignia) it does make it unwieldy. For offices I have a pretty easy solution, where we can just get rid of all of the service specific insignia and just show the standard metal rank at the top. For warrant offices, it’s small enough it shouldn’t be an issue to show the different insignia (which is quite different for CW5). That just leaves enlisted. Given the smaller size of their rank, I think it could be left as is, but would like your perspective. I don't think it would be as big of a problem as the officer one (which is quite unwieldy). Thoughts? Garuda28 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was basically thinking the same thing(s). Cheers - wolf  05:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Terrorist Organization"
The Iranian Parliament has designated the US Armed Forces as a "Terrorist Organization". has added this item, with refs attached, to the lead of this article, along with the lead of US Navy , US Marines , US Army and US Air Force. It has been removed from all the articles, for now, so that it can be discussed. I'm starting this discussion off here as a centralized location. Thoughts? - wolf  14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * note: notifying, who reverted from US Army, and , who reverted from US Armed Forces. (I reverted Navy, MC & AF.) - wolf  14:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * note: a nearly identical edit was added to the opening sentence of US Army by an IP user earlier today. It was reverted by . That user has been not'd of this discussion. fyi -  wolf  14:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The information that US armed forces are designated as terrorist organizations is extremely important and notable and deserve to be in the articles including the leads.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:United States Armed Forces/Archive 4 I'd like to bring up the previous thread on this topic, where consensus was overwhelming against addition. It should be sufficient to mention it at the Defense Department page, where it‘s mentioned under criticism. It’s do minor a mention and even that it shouldn’t be mentioned in most of these articles. And only one state designated them a terrorist organization for what is clearly political reasons. Moreover, I want to state I’m not in favor of it being mentioned in the IRGC lead either. Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging previous discussion members ; ; ; ; Garuda28 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with omission for the reasons that Garuda mentions. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, it is heavily sourced and the pages for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Quds Force state the groups are designated terrorist organizations so I don't see why it shouldn't be here too ImperatorCrassus (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a distinction between the standard IRCG (where only three countries have designated it as such, for really what are political reasons) that should probably be removed for the same reasons it shouldn't be added here. The Quds Force on the other hand has six countries who have designated it as such (to include Canada), which raise the bar significantly. There is also a difference between sourced and being notable enough to add. Garuda28 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While a mention of the US Armed Forces being designated an FTO is included in the "criticism" section of the US DOD page, (correct me if I'm wrong) but that is by just the one country only, Iran, and could be viewed as a "tit-for-tat" type response. Just the same, it is included and should remain there. Now while the mention in the IRGC page probably doesn't need to be in the lead, it is recognized by three countries and does seem to have merit. As such, it should be included, but moved down to another section (a similar "criticism" section?). Quds force should remain as is, per comments above. JMHO -  wolf  16:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's reasonable – mention it on the top level organization page (DoD in this case) and no real need to mention it on branch pages (like the different service branches/armed forces page) and then move the IRGC mention to a history/criticism section. Garuda28 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My general thoughts on this subject is, that it falls under not WP:NOTNEWS and not WP:NOTEWORTHY as Iran is the only country of note that considers the United States Armed Forces are terrorist organization. My general guideline for what is and is not a "world terrorist organization" is if they are recognized as such by NATO and/or whether the organization adheres to the international laws established via the Geneva Conventions. If they adhere to international laws, they are generally not recognized by NATO as a terrorist organization. Something like this would fall under the purview of the Iran–United States relations article and it is already noted in there under Iran–United States relations. Neovu79 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Just read the section of the Iran-US relations page noted above (thanks Neovu79). Of interest is the part where is not just where Iran designated the US military as "terrorists", but all her "allies operating in the West Asian Region" as well (which numbers 12 countries). Should we be figuring out exactly who all these allies are and adding notes of the Iranian FTO decree to their articles as well? Furthermore, the Iranian Supreme National Security Council additionally designated the US government as a "Terrorist Government", should we add that to the article on the US or the US Federal Gov't? I'm starting to wonder just how much wp:weight should be given these decrees by Iran and whether they are worthy of inclusion at all. Still following this debate however. - wolf  17:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the further declarations (to include the USG). I agree, it makes me wonder if we should give this any weight or inclusion at all. Garuda28 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be in the lead, regardless. A brief mention in the body is fine, IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (et.al) Having this info added to the lead of multiple articles is just one issue. While moving to the body as a brief note is one solution, other issues still needing to be addressed are; which article? And only one article, or more? Do we limit to the US military, or include the US Gov't? Also, should we be determining which allies this decree applies to and adding something to their articles? Or, should there be no mention at all, anywhere? (There might be some more issues as well, but you get point.)


 * Tomorrow perhaps I'll craft an initial proposal to itemize these issues and potential solutions, and maybe start a straw poll to gauge any consensus. (Or maybe someone else...?) No hurry though. I'd like to see some more editors contribute here, and any more previous/related discussions as well as any more relevant P&G could be useful as well. Lastly, while I posted a notice at wt:milhist, if there are any other places to post notices, for more attention, that might be helpful. Cheers - wolf  06:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there should be no mention in the lead of the armed forces article because the event was just a hiccup in the whole history of the armed forces. Mentioning it in the lead gives undue weight to the declaration. I could be mentioned somewhere in the article, but let's keep in mind that it was no big deal. Think about it, a terrorist state calling an organization terrorist. Kind of like the kettle calling the pot black. Any large organization like the armed forces is going to get some criticism from time to time, but it is "bigger" than that. Whatever mention it has in any article certainly doesn't deserve six citations; a couple at most from reliable sources only. FWIW... Cuprum17 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To me, it's like the Mafia labeling the FBI as "organized crime". The FBI certainly has had its problems, especially of late, but no one would pay any attention to such an announcement except to laugh. BilCat (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So BilCat informed me that my edit has been removed due to consensus. What is the logic behind concealing Iran's designation of the US Armed Forces a terrorist organization and highlighting the US designation of the IRGC a terrorist organization on the IRGC page? This looks biased in favor of the US and Wikipedia should not be pushing the US foreign policy.--RichyBlack (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

BilCat you comparing Iran to the Mafia and the US Military as the FBI exposes the clear pro-American bias you have against Iran. I thought Wikipedia should be free from these types of naked bias. And to think that you edited my post is truly unfortunate.--RichyBlack (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's sarcasm. (I apologize to any members of the Mafia I may have offended by comparing Iran's government to them.) We're allowed to express our opinions in discussions on talk pages, as long as we do so in a civil manner. As far as removing your edit from the article (not a "post" - we only post on talk pages), that's upholding existing consensus. I'd have removed it even if I personally supported keeping the mention in, and/or was personally pro-Iran. That's part of what a competent editor does. BilCat (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Futher discussion
Iran designated the US military as a terrorist organization, maybe include that somewhere Farbne (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See the above section please. Garuda28 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some consideration should be given to the definition of "Terrorist Organization" (the term currently redirects to List of designated terrorist groups), and Terrorism in general. Ultimately, it might be more appropriate to limit mention of this event/item to an Iran-related page, as adding it to a US Armed Forces or Gov't page may be undue, as noted above. More discussion is needed. - wolf  07:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is a discussion currently taking place regarding the lead images images in the infobox of several branch articles, that could also affect this page. FYI - wolf  17:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian Space Forces pre-date the U.S. Space Force
Therefore it's not the first and only one of it's kind. Belevalo (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since some of the sources are of Russian origin, can we be sure that they aren't suspect as propaganda? The lead of the article Russian Space Forces is poorly written and hard to understand what super-ceded what. I have marked the first citation as "dead". I will concede that leads do not require citations, but the facts they state should be backed up with citations in the main body of the article.Cuprum17 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * why would they be propaganda? this space arm of the RAF has existed since the early 90s. If anything the source for the USSF reeks of american exceptionalism. You do know there is a world outside the US borders, right? even if your journalists are unaware. Belevalo (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the sourcing issues with the Russian article, you do realize that US Space Command was established in the 80's, right? Also, try not to personalize these disputes. -  wolf  11:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it's not about who's first. the statement in the lead is simply wrong, or at least half of it. and you just stated another example why it's wrong. Belevalo (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way do we mean "first space force"? Its true it is the first fully independent service, but the Russians did have the Russian Space Forces organized as independent troops from 1992 to 1997 and 2001 to 2011, they were just not an independent service.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * exactly! and the russians (soviets) had a space force dating back to 1955. so it's definitely not the first of it's kind. Belevalo (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the United States has one dating back to 1954 (Western Development Division, now the USSF's Space Systems Command). The sources don’t indicate the Russian Space Forces were an independent service, unlike the USSF which is a fully independent service. And commonly acknowledges as such by organizations such as the Space Foundation (https://www.spacefoundation.org/2021/06/23/space-foundation-honors-us-space-force-with-2021-space-achievement-award/) Garuda28 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Active/Reserve
As of 2021, Global firepower and Statista says US has 1,400,000 active duty and nato int database says the US has 1,100,000 reserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:4e43:1b00:ad27:afda:b983:6a0d (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are looking to request a change to the article, you should use the edit request template, and remember to frame your request in a "." Also, there is no need to post repeat comments, and lastly please remember to sign your posts. Thanks -  wolf  03:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Taiwan, Ukraine, Iran, Brazil, Egypt, Cuba, and Indonesia all have at least 1,000,000 troops, so the US doesn't have exclusivity in this area anymore and if anything their force is getting smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:4e43:1b00:1c93:958f:efcb:4835 (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See previous reply. -  wolf  16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2020 Demographics update
Hello, the DoD has published their 2020 demographics report with detailed information on personnel across gender, age, race profiles for each branch of the military. I would like to update portions of this article with the latest information from the 2020 report (and have already started to do so in the "Women" section. Before I edit the tables in the "personnel" section I want to ensure its ok to move forward, given the various protections on this article. Thanks for any guidance. Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement
"United States Armed Forces" is treated as a plural throughout the lede, except in this sentence:

"U.S. Armed Forces has significant capabilities in both defense and power projection due to its large budget, resulting in advanced and powerful technologies which enables a widespread deployment of the force around the world, including around 800 military bases outside the United States."

Instead, the sentence should read:

"The U.S. Armed Forces HAVE significant capabilities in both defense and power projection due to THEIR large BUDGETS, resulting in advanced and powerful technologies which ENABLE a widespread deployment of the FORCES around the world, including around 800 military bases outside the United States."

The capitalized words are to show which words need to be altered to correct the grammar. Of course, they should remain lowercase in the revised version. If "U.S. Armed Forces" is instead treated as singular, then someone would need to comb through and correct the instances where it is treated as a plural.

I have no issue with or opinion of which is selected, singular or plural. I can see arguments for both sides. What I do take issue with is a lack of consistency. If it's singular, it should remain singular throughout, and vice versa. Someone please edit this error since the article is locked and I am unable. Thank you.

On a side note, whether singular or plural is chosen for "U.S. Armed Forces," "enables" should still be edited to "enable" regardless since it is the verb for the plural subject "technologies." Thanks again. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I found another subject-verb agreement inconsistency:

"The armed forces consists of six service branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard."

If plural, should read:

"The armed forces CONSIST of six service branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard."

Again, I suggest choosing plural or singular, but sticking with the decision throughout the entire article. Someone please edit this. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)