Talk:United States Armed Forces/Archive 5

Air Arm
Could someone explain this term in the lede? Here is the context:

"The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest air force, the U.S. Navy is the world's largest navy by tonnage, and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps combined are the world's second largest AIR ARM."

What is an "air arm"? It sounds like it has to do with the air force or with aircraft, pilots, or crews. Is this a typographical error? Should it read "sea arm"? Since the navy is typically associated with sea operations, and the marines are typically associated with land operations, it would appear odd to the uninitiated to think of their combined force as an "air arm," as the sentence indicates. I realize that both branches have pilots and aircraft, but that may not be obvious to the lay person. A brief or cursory definition would be in order, or at least a link or note with a more detailed explanation. Since the article is locked, I must resort to the talk page to request such an edit. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a solution to this article lock. Register yourself on Wikipedia as an editor and after you become an editor with so many edits you are an auto-confirmed editor and can edit any article you want. You seem to understand the mechanics of grammar. Register and contribute that way. Just a suggestion, of course. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Replyto:66.91.36.8 To answer your question, this is not a typo - the US navy and marines each have an aviation force to support their military objectives, and the combined size of this aviation fleet is the second largest in the world (after the US air force). Your suggestions around grammar, structure and providing context are well noted, and I agree with @Cuprum17 suggestion to register in order to contribute to these types of pages. Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , afaik, you can't ping ip users. fyi - wolf  23:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cuprum17, @Garuda28, @thewolfchild or any other frequent/long standing editors of this page: I do think this is an opportunity to revise the sentence in question above in the lead, given the source is from 2017. 2021-2022 data reflect the following ranking in terms of total quantity of aircraft: 1) US Air Force 2) US Army Aviation 3) US Navy + Marines combined 4) Russian Air force. (TVR ranking places the US Navy 2nd and the Russian Air force 3rd). The beginning of this paragraph references "military strength" which is a composite measure of several indexes that rank countries based on more than just size/quantity of the fleet. If we are talking size of Air Arms here, then the US Army is second after the airforce, and the sentence should be revised, but if we are talking 'strength' of the air arm, then the Navy is second and the sentence can stay as is (or be edited to remove the marines) Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, I believe that the Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets should be counted together. At times a Marine Corps Aircraft Wing is assigned carrier duty with the Navy. Much of the flight tactics are shared and both the Navy and Marine Corps take their initial flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station. Just my opinion, of course. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to slightly disagree with on this one - I think we've got to count Navy and Marine Corps aircraft separately since they're separate services, even if they're under the same military department. Also, I'm very hesitant to use "military strength" rankings. Depending on the source they can be quite sensationalist. Garuda28 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with combining Navy & USMC numbers in certain contexts, such as global rankings, as long as it's made clear the two are combined, (eg: always use "US Navy and US Marines combined", even if stating Dept of Air Force vs Dept of Navy, etc). After all, I believe we have the US Coast Guard noted as the world's "12th largest naval force" somewhere. (jmho) -  wolf  18:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I've updated the sentence in the lead to reflect the latest data (with US army aviation having the second largest fleet) and have included a combined view of the US Navy and Marine force as ranking 3rd. Russia has a larger aviation fleet than both the Navy or Marines when compared seperately, so if we decide to separate the two at any point, the sentence will need to change. Regardless it needed to be updated to reflect the US Army aviation ranking Schwinnspeed (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this reads like an advertisement
This tends to mention just positive things and tries to play it up. Perhaps a critisms/war crimes page should be added. RJS001 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're saying the article is not neutral, can you give some examples? I noticed you posted this comment after you made this edit and it was reverted shortly after. Did you have any other concerns aside from that? - w o lf  22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Definitely needs a criticisms section.  I added a link to the wiki page for US war crimes in the "see also" section. aniola (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia discourages the creation of stand alone "criticism" sections in articles, and instead recommends that criticism from reliable secondary sources be incorporated directly into applicable sections where the content is integrated and relevant. You can read what Jimmy Wales said about "troll magnet" criticism sections back in 2006 here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Designation of a terror organization.
@AzureCitizen please explain why do you think the "terrorist" designation doesn't meet the "threshold" of "importance and relevancy" for insertion into the "lead like this". It's pretty common practice to input this information in the lead for most of the designated terror organization. If you look into the primary articles of most of the groups in the list of designated terrorist groups (eg. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Boko Haram, Palestine Liberation Organization) you'll see that this information is present in the lead. This itself is reason enough to keep this information in the lead for this article too, especially when citations were provided to ensure the factualness of the information provided.

SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See Talk:United States Armed Forces/Archive 4. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, but as far as I see there is no consensus in the issue, although some editors proclaim it to be in later threads. Even if we agree there is consensus on not adding this, the consensus is reached by handful of editors, most of whom are western editors with very obvious pro-American sentiments. This is not just a problem with this article but Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that a common practice addition done in thousands of previous articles is not being allowed to add in one article because biased editors with subjective viewpoints don't agree to see their or their ally's armed forces being designated as terrorists is just insane. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Attacking other editors, and basically the entire English Wikipedia, is not how one attempts to collaboratively discuss a content matter. You need to focus on edits, not editors. I suggest you strike your comments from "'most of whom..." all the way through to the end, at "...is just insane.", and try again. Keep in mind that consensus alone doesn't always determine content changes, there are other policies, guidelines and widely established practices, (usuallly documented in essays), that also help determine what should or should not be included in an article and how, such as: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOT, etc., etc. Try to make your point(s) about the content at issue, without treating everyone else as your enemy from the start, and try to ensure you have sourcing and policy to support your reasoning. - w o lf  15:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, My point is very simple and not unique, as has been shared by previous editors. This piece of information, i.e. the designation of a terror organization and the states/groups which designate this, is consistently included in the lead of the articles about related organizations. It's undeniable this is an obvious "common/best practice". This follows the "prominent adherent" point from the Due and undue weight section of the Neutral point of view policy article, which is applicable in this case because my viewpoint is in the "alleged" minority. In my opinion, this factor is enough to subside any doubts about policy because if it's to the contrary, then we have a violation of policy in more than a hundred of related articles. While coming to sourcing, citations were provided from two established news sources, Al Jazeera and CBS News. While talking about policy, this instance also seems like a violation of policy regarding censorship. Just because the information seems like disturbing to some, doesn't mean we can allow to censor this information. In conclusion, Wikipedia policy not only allows this information to be kept in the lead of the article but necessitates it.
 * Secondly, I was criticizing the system which allows this level of obvious biasedness by editors, not 'attacking" them. Criticizing is probably one of the foundational pillars of "collaboration". I will strike only the "western" word from the "most of whom" sentence because it's presumptuous of me although I suspect it to be true. The rest of the sentence remains because it's apparent from observation of the archived threads. The "is just insane" sentence is directly about the Wikipedia policy, it is not even about editors.
 * Lastly, edits, not editors, is about assuming good faith for editors. This presumes no action has been taken to assume to the contrary afterwards, which is not the case here unfortunately. Two previous threads in the linked Archive 4 with the same biased arguments which led to the "alleged" consensus on creating an exception. The fact that the "alleged" consensus reached is to have a special exception for only United States Armed Forces speaks for itself. I am mostly blaming the system which allows this to happen. Even if this doesn't lead to any changes, I just hope that this leads to a wider discussion about editor biasedness in Wikipedia, especially in consensus discussions. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Wikipedia policy necessitates information being in the lead, chapter and verse. If that were the case, every fact and detail would be in the lead, thus no requirement for the article itself. To claim no bias, everything would be in the lead. Of course there is some bias; in an article with a scope the size of United States Armed Forces, the line has to be drawn somewhere as to the relative importance of each aspect of the article. Whether the United States Armed Forces is a deemed a terrorist organization is irrelevant in the grand scheme of an article of this size. Being called a terrorist organization is certainly not going to change policy among the world powers. It is a political ploy that doesn't play well with the world community. In the case of Iran it is much like the pot calling the kettle black; in other words, no big deal. I take umbrage about your insinuation that there is editor bias about this article. Editors of this article want a well written article that fairly represents the subject matter. This is just my opinion, of course. It carries as much weight as yours, I am sure. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image / flags (info box)
In remaining consistent to all other Armed forces pages, I suggest a single subject main like the U.S. DoD seal as they are in charge all functions of the US Armed Forces (that includes the USCG in wartime). The British Armed Forces page has taken a similar approach with use of the Ministry of Defence Badge. The other issue is the excessive use flag icons, which seems to lend no real educational value, and defeats the purpose of the wiki-link - while MOS:FLAG states using military flags, but is in conflict with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:ICONDECORATION. A few examples of other Armed Forces pages ●Australia ● Equatorial Guinea ● Finland  ● Ivory Coast  ● Croatia ● Argentina ● Colombia ●Peru ● Portugal ● Greece  ● Italy ● Turkmenistan ● Saudi Arabia ●Spain ●Germany ● Tanzania ● Trinidad and Tobago - Suggestions? FOX 52 talk! 04:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the topic of flag icons, I'm pretty content with their usage. They're consistently used across many MILHIST military organization pages, which would suggest that the MILHIST community has broadly accepted their usage. I see no reason they need to go and WP:MILMOS seems alright with their usage in situations like this. If other users have a different opinion on this, I'm open to debate, but given how often they're used I don't believe this is the case.
 * On the topic of the main image, I think it's first important to note that there is no universal symbol for the U.S. Armed Forces, unlike many other counties. My concern with following the British model and using the DoD seal would be that, unlike the UK, the U.S. Coast Guard is under Homeland Security, even though it functions as a military service at all times. I will defer to on this point, however. I would be open to using the Joint Chiefs of Staff badge, as it comprised the military leadership of all the services, except the Coast Guard – but it does have a sword for all six branches, to include the coast guard. That might be the closest you get to a U.S. Armed Forces symbol.  what would you think about the JCS emblem? That would probably mirror the intent of the UK Armed Forces the best (where the symbol represents the services)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garuda28 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Flag Icons only clutter up the info box, and to state "which would suggest that the MILHIST community has broadly accepted their usage" is speculation, the flags are mere eye candy, that server a no real purpose. Content isn't really a reason to keep something, if you have valid reason for their inclusion than you should make your case. And per WP:MILMOS states: "It is important to keep in mind that infobox templates permit limited useful width, so the use of flag icons in them can potentially conflict with readability" - As for the JCS emblem, yes IMO that works - FOX 52 talk! 05:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Immediate reaction is: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. But that said, I know you already recently tried to remove several items, images, flags, etc., from the page, but were then reverted by, who also added a lengthy edit summary worth reading. Not sure why you want so badly to remove this content. The United States Department of Defense seems to be the page you're looking for. It's a single entity, with a single infobox image and only a few flags. This page however, the United States Armed Forces, is plural, and representitive of the six service branches, hence the number of images, and a few more flags, but ones that are typically used on pages such as this. I neither see a need for the change you propose, nor find it to be an improvement. (jmho) -  wolf  07:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything wrong with the six emblems of the service branches being displayed. I don't like the idea of using the Department of Defense seal or the Joint Chiefs of Staff emblem because it says nothing about the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard isn't a part of the rest of the defense establishment, however it is an armed service. (14USC101) Using the six emblems is historic in that each emblem is a part of that services history. Each service is represented equally by the emblem in order of precedence. Using six flags emphasizes that there are six services within the Armed Forces of the United States. The use of flags before the names of the service is not uncommon within the MILHIST community. It is something that sets the community off from most of the other communities in Wikipedia. Tradition is very important in the Armed Forces. Many of the ceremonies that each of the six armed services have include the use of flags and perhaps that is why the MILHIST crowd uses them in articles. I don't think that the average reader of a military Wikipedia article is distracted much by their use and I second Thewolfchild's comments above. Nothing about the Armed Forces of the United States needs fixing in my opinion. As for the comments about the Coast Guard serving in the Department of Defense, that has never happened. The last time the control of the Coast Guard was shifted during a war was when the control of the Coast Guard was assigned to the Navy Department during World War II. It has never served during a war with the Department of Defense because the Department of Defense didn't exist before 1947. To clarify, the Coast Guard serves under the Department of the Navy if Congress declares war or when the president directs. It doesn't serve in the Department of Defense as a separate service. The Coast Guard is not a part of the Joint Chiefs either. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are all "Armed Forces" plural ie: British Armed Forces but the U.S. is different somehow? - And am confused on the USCG hang up, either it's with the US Military or it isn't - according to the US DoD they are. - This seems to be case a of those for decorations & those who are not - flag icons (IMO) have no function in this case & are not are needed to emphasize certain things -a military Engagement yes the flag(s) helps me understand who is with who. Keep in mind this was created for reason(s) that I have specified. - FOX 52 talk! 01:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard is part of the Armed Forces, but is not part of the Defense Department. (At least that's what I believe is being said). Garuda28 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the US DoD looks like they are - FOX 52 talk! 04:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The defense.gov page that Fox25 is citing has the heading: "Our Forces" and then an entry for each service. The Coast Guard entry states; There is also a link to follow for additional information. Hope this clears things up. -  wolf  06:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I noted that you pinged several editors at the top of this discussion. I would suggest that going forward, that you don't notify specific editors of discussions such as this, where you are seeking a consensus for content change, as well as RfCs, AfDs, RMs, etc., etc. so as to avoid the appearence of Canvassing for !votes. Thanks -  wolf  07:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are all "Armed Forces" plural ie: British Armed Forces but the U.S. is different somehow? It's why I suggested the DoD seal- <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 15:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard is by law an armed service, (14USC101) however it is NOT within the Department of Defense. The Coast Guard is assigned by law to the Department of Homeland Security and this is why the seal of the Department of Defense is not appropriate in an infobox about the Armed Forces of the United States. There is nothing wrong with using the six emblems of the six armed services. The six seals do a beautiful job of illustrating the six armed services while the Department of Defense seal does not have the same connotation.
 * Consider this: IF you were to use the Department of Defense seal in the Armed Forces of the United States infobox, logic would say that the seal of the Department of Homeland Security should also be displayed. This array would not make sense because the Department of Homeland Security consists of other agencies besides the Coast Guard who are by law NOT armed services. This is the reason that logic says that the six seals of the six Armed Services of the United States is a better way of illustrating the services in the infobox.Cuprum17 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. -  wolf  17:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So out of six, there's one that falls under DHS, but should have its seal included? And a simple notation won't do? - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 18:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What about 14USC101 do you not understand? The reason that the Coast Guard resides outside of the Department of Defense is that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents most DoD Components from enforcing domestic law and the ones that aren't prohibited by law have voluntarily declined to do so. The reason the Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security is that it is charged by Congress with eleven statutory missions, many of which have to do with the enforcement of domestic laws or regulations. The Coast Guard has never been a part of the Department of Defense, but it is an armed service. Don't try to fix something that isn't broke...Cuprum17 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Obliviously I think it is broke, but this is all that's available I guess - thanks for your JCS idea appreciate the cooperative effort. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 19:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"So out of six, there's one that falls under DHS, but should have its seal included? And a simple notation won't do?" -  I have to ask, have you even read, and fully understood, the lead of the USCG article? Because if you haven't, you should, and then I don't think there would be a need for this debate. Certainly not one with questions like this. (imo) -  wolf  20:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
The flags and seals are too much clutter and if one has a disability, they may not be able to see it – has anyone thought about that? Why should we keep them? I really don’t see the need for them, especially the ones for the leaders (President, SOD, etc.). If they want to see the flag or seal, they can go to that the appropriate page. I cam okay with the USA for “nationality” and maybe the military branches, but that’s it. Most military personnel on Wikipedia don’t have flags in their info boxes anymore, so there’s no reason we should be keeping them. Not to mention WP:INFOBOXFLAG talks about this. Corky 10:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a policy or guideline that supports the disability claim? Also, which part of wp:infoboxflag are you relying on here? (A link/quote would be helpful.) Thanks - w o lf  17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox parameter: conscription
I would like you to change the conscription by : No only. So, it will be clear thank you! 103.73.44.175 (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is currently a useful link to an entire article on the subject. Removing it does not make anything "clear". - w o lf  15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Officer Corps and Enlisted Corps sections under Rank Structure need adjusting.
Both sections are causing the whole article to shrink to fit my screen. I don't know how to do it, but these sections can be split in a way that does not cause negatively affect the article's display size. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023
Change 'riverine operaitons' to 'riverine operations' 208.65.67.138 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Formal name of armed forces of the United States
At Template talk:United States Armed Forces informal discussions are taking place about whether the main article title, United States Armed Forces, is the best place to have the article. I initially raised these concerns when I noticed that the style "United States Armed Forces" is not referred to in United States Code, Annotated. The nearest thing in U.S. Code is "the armed forces."

All are encouraged and welcome to put their views at the bottom of that talkpage, see Template talk:United States Armed Forces; these discussions may be formalized into a WP:RfC at some point. Kind regards to all, Happy New Year. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

History
Why has the summary of the military's history been removed from the lead? This is standard for major militaries. Stara Marusya (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you check the history, you'd see the article has been going under a major revamp/update by over the past couple weeks, who's added about 100MB of content. I'd wait a bit to see how everything shakes out when he's done, but if you can't wait, then just ask him... -  w o lf  05:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it is inappropriate that wars that the US armed forces have been involved in are listed in the Quick Facts, I think it is both opposed to the concise nature of the infobox and it is nonstandard for pages regarding other nations' armed forces. I believe the Quick Facts: History section should direct to other pages that cover U.S. military history as is standard with other militaries. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Industry section of infobox
I am questioning the need for a section in the article infobox that is titled "Industry". With all the flags and the length of the list wouldn't be better presented in the body of the article under the title of perhaps "International suppliers". Just asking for a friend...Cuprum17 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
when is the tag goign to be rmeoved now tis this moth is has ther since last June! 64.189.18.35 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  (talk | contribs) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)