Talk:Canadian Armed Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Canadian Forces)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Military (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Canadian Forces vs. Canadian Armed Forces[edit]

All the Canadian government material I can find refers to the "Canadian Forces" not the "Canadian Armed Forces." Shouldn't this article use the title that the Canadian Forces themselves use? Deleting Unnecessary Words 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree here. I think the official name was changed at some point from Canadian Armed Forces to Canadian Forces but I haven't found a reference. The Forces definitely use Canadian Forces and the abbreviation CF. Cjrother 00:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From the National Defence Act: "14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." I presume the pre-1968 act read "...three Services called the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force." Since there is now only a single service, there is only a tiny semantic difference between Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces. Currently Canadian Forces is the more commonly used name, so I agree the article should be moved.--Indefatigable 01:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Legal, though seldom used name is Royal Canadian Armed Forces, for which I set up a redirect. Spinboy 18:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be renamed. They are officially called the Canadian Armed Forces and informally known as the Canadian Forces. They have never been known as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, rather they are referred to as Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, or Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. Here is the actual text taken from the National Defence Act (R.S., c. N-4, s. 14.):

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.[1]

Plasma east 04:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you can say that they are "informally known as the Canadian Forces." I've seen references to the Canadian Forces on in many formal places. HistoryBA 23:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
True. Perhaps "shortened to" would be a better way to word that sentence instead of using "informally known as". Regardless, their official name is "Canadian Armed Forces", as per the National Defence Act, however many military and gov't documents also use the short form.Plasma east 02:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
A short passage from the National Defence Act has been quoted twice above to support the contention that the Canadian military is called the "Canadian Armed Forces." I just finished reviewing the legislation and discovered that throughout the act the military is called the "Canadian Forces." This phrase appears dozens of times. The phrase "Canadian Armed Forces" appears but once. Given that the organization calls itself "Canadian Forces" and that the legislation uses both terms with a preference for "Canadian Forces," I would again suggest that we change the title of this article. HistoryBA 23:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I contacted DND's general inquiries desk and received the following response to my question as to which is official:

Both titles are correct. Canadian Forces/Forces canadiennes is what is mostly used as the official title in mostly all the Department of National Defence documents and publications.

This begs the question, should the article follow the National Defence Act which stipulates "one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", or use the more common term?
As an aside, I'm wondering why the word "Armed" has been dropped from most federal gov't references to the organization? During the 70's to the 90's, most bases had an "Armed Forces Day" (some still do). From Google searches on the term, reference is still made by some provincial and municipal governments to the Canadian Armed Forces. It seems that the reorganization in the mid-90's which saw Communication Command dropped and Force Mobile Command renamed to Land Force Command also saw the increasing use of the CF terminology. I'm certainly wrong, but I can't help feeling that this almost seems like a post-Cold War/post-Somalia Scandal rebranding by the federal gov't to dilute the fact that it is a military force... That, or it's another part of the Federal Identity Program. Could also be that it's a simpler acronym, and everyone knows how the military loves acronyms. Plasma east 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term Canadian Armed forces was dropped before 1985. I joined the Canadian Forces in 1985 and it was known as Canadian Forces then.

I joined in '83. I only ever heard "Canadian Armed Forces" in recruiting adverts on TV. All our general service knowledge (GSK) classes referred to the "Canadian Forces" or CF. Hence, CFCC (Canadian Forces Communicaions Command), CFE (Canadian Forces Europe), CFB (Canadian Forces Base), and the ever-lovin' CF uniform. I've always regarded "Canadian Armed Forces" to either be an anomaly; I've never heard it used by anyone who was "in".

I think this should be named Canadian Forces, just on the fact that it is the common term, I very rarely hear the term Canadian Armed Forces, and generally that is in foreign media. Also the fact that according to the person above Canadian Forces is still an official title.

However, post-unification, Canadian military aircraft did carry "shadow-lettered" "Canadian Armed Forces/Forces Armees Canadiennes" titling similar to the former Royal Canadian Air Force titling. On most aircraft (especially the CF-101 and CF-104 fighters; though the CF-5 was adopted pre-unification it did not enter service until after unification and never carried "RCAF" titles, except for a couple of prototypes), the "R" was simply dropped from "RCAF" to read "CAF", though a corresponding French "FAC" was not adopted. This was later changed to a maple leaf roundel bracketted by "Armed Forces/Forces Armees" titling and the word "CANADA" replacing the "Canadian Armed Forces"/"Forces Armees Canadiennes" titles. Up until the mid-1990s, though, "CAF" was still found on military aircraft (usually on the port wing underside, with the last three digits of the aircraft's serial number on the starboard wing underside). So this is an indication that "Canadian Armed Forces" was used officially, at least on aircraft. I've never seen it on "army" or "navy" vehicles/vessels. Having said that, most CF personnel I've talked to do say "Canadian Forces" or else a more specific "army", "navy", or "air force". In print (I'm a member of the Air Force Association of Canada and receive the "Airforce" magazine) I often see "Canada's air force" or "Canada's navy" but usually not "Canada's army" - I tend to see "Canadian Army" (capitalized) moreso --MarshallStack 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Of all the Canadian Standard Military Pattern vehicles I've seen, only tanks have a national identifier (a black maple leaf) on the side. Other vehicles (MLVWs, LSVWs, the old CUCVs) may have some kind of identifying number on the door. I've never seen "Canada", "Armed Forces", or any other such identification. The license plates all say "Canada" on them, tho', but I do not know if they keep those highly-reflective items on in wartime. Civilian pattern vehicles, like staff cars, E-cabs, minivans, etc, usually only have the "cornflake" on the doors (along with the standard issue plates). SigPig 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It should be Canadian Forces, which is the official term. Canadian Armed Forces is an informal term. --Deathphoenix 12:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I recall seeing older pictures of CF-188s with CAF on them, so I wouldn't discount that it was (or still is) used. However, this is a moot discussion (largely) given the abundance of support and mentions of CF. E Pluribus Anthony 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's been established here by serving/past members of the CF that Canadian Forces/Forces canadiennes is the correct term and I defer to them. However, I remember being on the subway in Toronto in 1983 and seeing a recruiting advert that said Canadian Armed Forces/Forces Armees Canadiennes - No Life Like It! I also saw similar TV spots in the late '80s on the CBC (showing mainly army training) that used the full CAF terminology.--MarshallStack 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces" is the most formal name, and is what is stated on commissioning scrolls and hundreds of times within the Queen's Regulations and Orders. 'Canadian Forces' has become the norm through common usage. The NDA shuffles it a bit saying "the armed forces of Her Majesty". Canadian Armed Forces is undeniably the official name (NDA), however, prefixing Her Majesty to the name is entirely correct, as they are Her Majesty's Forces and that is the term used on formal documents.--Trackratte 14:33, 27 March 2007

I think the term "Canadian Armed Forces" should be used for the title of this page because that's the offcial name of Canada's military. JoJaEpp (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are named based on common usage. CAF has become more prevalent over the past year since the directive came out that CAF will be used in all official writing instead of CF. The common name is the CF and is what is used by the CF itself. It is already written in the lead that CAF is the official title. trackratte (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
As per most recent CANFORGEN's, the CAF refers to itself as the CAF - this is aligned with the 2012/2013 changes to rank, insignia, Area/Division and base names. The name should be changed to CAF to reflect usage by the Canadian government and CAF itself.

Being a recent former Royal Canadian Air Cadet, and having family in the CF, I can assure you all that "Canadian Forces" is still the most common usage, and are the words that appear on the side of all CF property and as the header on all documents. "Canadian Armed Forces" is the official phrase, yes, but is still mostly only included in legal documents and in official announcements. Using "Canadian Armed Forces" instead of "Canadian Forces" in the page title because it's the official name would be like using the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" instead of "United Kingdom" because the former is the official name; while that's true, the latter is used in the page title, as it is the common, shortened phrase. Breaker 355 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For clarification here, I'm actually in the Navy right now and I can assure you all that "Canadian Armed Forces" is the only usage that should be used. As per the CANFORGEN reference above, anyone using "CF" is incorrect. The reason everything has CF written on the side of it and is on headers is because those things were labelled that way when the CAF was referred to as the CF. Any new documents or equipment should be labelled with the proper "Canadian Armed Forces" terminology. The current name of this article is correct. Also, this discussion made me realize that my current username references the old terminology, username change submitted.....--CFnavymars (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Not to split hairs, but I think we should use official figures for manpower. This section formerly linked to the inaccurate and inconsistent list of military strength by country on Wikipedia; the numbers constantly change, countries are out of order, and the definition of military manpower is not consistently applied from country to country.

E.g., the aforementioned figure of 52,300 for "active troops" is the approximate trained, effective strength, not the total strength of about 62,000. Total strength would include personnel going through the training system, staff temporarily on courses, sick leave, etc. One may argue about whether this is a better measure of military manpower, but since total figures are more readily available from official sources, these should be more accurate. Also, other armed forces on Wikipedia seem to define their "active" strength as total manpower (see aforementioned list). So, why not compare apples to apples? If someone wants to, we can restore the trained, effective strength, but note that this is an estimate, and keep the verified "total" figures as well.

I linked to the DND web site, plus (which, as noted above, is actually a Government of Canada web site). Both have approximately the same figures. I think we can provide the "approximate" figures. I don't think there's any point in trying to be more precise than, say, thousands. --Aardvark114 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

they do that in aus, count all the military not just active ones, so in the aus page its active- 80 000 total 105 000--Gargabook (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Commander in Chief[edit]

Gambino - the first source you provided had no reference to the Commander in Chief, but it is irrelevant anyway as the article is about the current C-i-C. The second ref you provide, the GG's website, clearly states that the GG is the Commander in Chief, not the Monarch. Several soldiers in my regiment wear the C-i-C Commendation and it was presented in the GG's name, not the Monarchs. The ref states that in the 1940s, the title of C-i-C passed firmly to the GG unless I am reading something wrong. Please state which part of the reference you feel indicates the Queen is currently the Commander in Chief. Michael Dorosh 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The first souce does indeed explicitly state that the Commander-in-Chief is the Monarch - III. EXECUTIVE POWER, 15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.
Further, the 1904 Act stated: The Command-in-Chief of the Militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.
All the 1947 Letters Patent (as referred to on the GG's website) say in relation to this is: "II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada..."
Though the GG holds the title Commander-in-Chief, it is on behalf of the Monarch as a) the Constitution Act is still the central core of the Canadian Constitution - section III.15 has not been repealed or altered - and b) the 1947 Letters Patent state that the powers the GG is to exercise still belong to the Queen ("powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us"). --gbambino 03:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources referred to are correct. What the sources mean is that while "Command in Chief" is vested in the Queen, the title of "Commander in Chief" belongs to the Governor General. It may be a bit pedantic, but she has not given that tile to herself, nor has the Constitution, nor do the Letters Patent infer that she reserves the title to herself.

The 1904 Act is not in force anymore, but it repeats the same language from the Constitution (as quoted here). In this regard it adds little to the analysis.

The Letters Patent set out that there will be a "Governor General and Commander In Chief", two titles for the same individual. They then go on to indicate at clause II that the GG will "exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada." This authorizes the GG to exercise the power of "Command in Chief" for HMQ in right of Canada - which accords perfectly with the GG also holding the title of Commander in Chief.

"Command in Chief" is a power vested in HMQ, but exercised by the GG. "Commander in Chief" is a title, given to the GG. As the GG is authorized to exercise the power consititutionally vested in HMQ there is no conflict. Commander in Chief - GG's title, given by HMQ. Command in Chief - power belonging to the Queen, excercised by the GG. As there can not be two Commanders in Chief for the same forces, this would seem to be the only rationale way to read these two important documents (Consitution and Letters Patent) together and give meaning to the words. (It is the only way I have been able to reconcile the two in any event!) Kreichert (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Letters Patent make implicitly clear that the GG is the C-in-C. Seeing as there may be considerable disagreement, is there an appetite for changing the main article to reflect this fact? Because right now it reads like the Queen holds the title of C-in-C.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination quick-failed[edit]

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article was nominated on August 26, but I don't see a candidate banner at the top of the page so I won't include a tag saying that it was failed. Before nominating the article again, the five or six citation needed tags need to be addressed and more sources should be added throughout the article as some sections are not sourced at all. The inline citations should also be more consistently formatted to include the author, newspaper, title, etc. See WP:CITET for some templates you can use. Some sections are only a single sentence. Either merge them into another sentence or expand on them so that the single sentences don't stand alone. Additionally, there are a lot of lists within the article, where prose would be more appropriate. Once you have addressed these issues and have looked over the rest of the criteria, consider renominating again. Good job so far, the article is very comprehensive and the images are great. --Nehrams2020 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Size of Post-World War II Armed Forces[edit]

The article says that Canada had the third largest navy at the end of World War Two. Other sources say Canada's was the third largest ALLIED navy, and the fourth largest in the world. Can anyone verify which is correct? PlymouthG (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada had the third largest Navy, with the Soviet Union having the fourth. --Kcind (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm pretty sure this info is correct, it should still get a proper citation--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

F-35 photo[edit]

User:Bambuway has added a photo of the F-35 Lightening II, with the caption "F-35 Lightning II is set to join the Canadian Air Command". According to the official DND page on the project Canada is participating as an industrial partner in producing the aircraft, but has not committed to actually buying any, saying: "In May 2008, the Government of Canada unveiled the Canada First Defence Strategy. This strategy clearly lays out the government's intention to replace the current fleet of CF-18 aircraft with a Next Generation Fighter Capability. The Department of National Defence has completed a preliminary assessment of available options, including the F-35, and anticipates that the Next Generation Fighter Capability project will be advanced to government in 2009." If there is any more recent information indicating an actual order has been placed then let's please see it, otherwise this photo is speculative in this context and doesn't belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Lacking any evidence of an actual order then I will remove the image. Please discuss here and provide some indication of an actual order, prior to putting it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The photo was added back in with a reference for Canada's participation in the JSF program. I've removed it again, as, again, it's still not an actual order. Oh, I may have missed the discussion here before it was re-added this time, as requested by Ahunt - I'm still looking for it, in good faith. Think I'll find it? - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Canada bought into this program to bring manufacturing jobs to the country and has only made vague comments about actually buying any aircraft, without a firm commitment. Given our government's new record deficit spending in the last two years I think the chances of ordering any F-35s are fading fast. It is far more likely that we will end up with some leased stop-gap solution to make up for the quickly-airframe-life-expiring CF-18 fleet, combined with limiting their YFR (Yearly Flying Rate), until the next generation of unmanned fighters arrives. All that speculation on my part it to say that these are more reasons to not put a picture of the F-35 in the article until an actual order is announced. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sister force to british armed forces[edit]

Speeking to a Canadian officer in the Canadian Land Force (now on operations in the UK under British command) he said the Canadian and British forces serve as sister forces under HM the Queen. Dont know if thats actualy official, or that its just due to the close relations between the two nations and out common history, heritage and Royal Family. Recon.Army (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a ref on that, even in my time in the CF. Sounds like sentiment to me. - Ahunt (talk)
technically "Recon.Army" is correct as Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, but this term is not applied. All regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. As such, all new recruits into the military, navy, and air force are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors, and, according to the National Defence Act, the uttering of disloyal words towards the reigning King or Queen is considered treasonous and "disgraceful conduct"; Such offences may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment......for more info see --> The Canadian Crown and the Canadian Forces. Moxy (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh there is no doubt that the Queen is the head of state of Canada and the Commander in Chief of the CF though the GG, but that a doesn't establish any formal relationship between the CF and any other armed forces. It is more telling that we are NATO partners. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It's worth remembering that HM the Queen is Commander-in-Chief as Queen of Canada, a separate Crown from that of the United Kingdom. The oath of allegiance is to her in that capacity. It may be fair to describe Canada and the UK as having "sister forces", but it's not a formal arrangement AFAIK. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone know about the development of the CF salute? [2] According to Veteran's Affairs Canada, there were three service salutes before SV Radley-Walters came up with a unified salute because the minister, mentioned as "Pallier" wanted one. I assume the minister is actually Paul Hellyer, the guy who merged all the services together into the CF. (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Salutes of Canada might be a good idea, with the CF salute, the salutes that preceded it, salutes from outside the Forces, etc. (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The unified salute of the Canadian Forces was originally meant to be a variation on the naval salute with palm down. To perform this salute, where the forearm must 'bend' to be horizontal with the hand, is anatomicallly near-impossible. As a result, salutes by members of the forces vary according to their disposition. Some come close to imitating the 'Hellyer', others imitate the varieties of American salutes that one might see on TV or in the movies, others are similar to those of the leaders of American marching bands where the hand is nearly vertical. In other words, the discipline of the 'salute' has disappeared and the result is ridiculous where it's 'make it up as you go'. This is a far cry from the snappy salutes of the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF. With the recent restoration of the identities of the navy, army and air force, the original salutes should be restored. Canadian soldiers shouldn't have to go and see an American movie to decide how to salute. pidd (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a page to bemoan unification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny87514 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


User:Canadian Infantry has recently added many images to this article. I think the article has now become overwhelmed with them. I propose cutting the number down. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Overkill to say the least.  BC  talk to me 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Concur. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I was going to leave this for a few days to gain wider input, but the article was in such a state of duplicated images and such that I have gone ahead and cleaned it up. We can continue this discussion here if there are any further opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation 2 dead[edit]

Hi all. I'm not an expert Wiki editor yet but citation 2 on this page leads to a 'dead link'. I thought someone might want to fix that.

Lewiscb (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)0921 EST 23MAR 2011

Yes check.svg Done.Moxy (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I just tested a few links, more than this one is dead now. Most likely has something to do with the whole re-formatting of GoC websites. This will have to be addressed.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did they revert to the old names?[edit]

Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.? Is this a sign of renewed loyalty to the Crown, now that the USA appears to be on the wane? ðarkuncoll 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Renewed loyalty"? The Forces have always been loyal to the Queen. It has nothing to do with the States. The Royal prefix just sounds better than Air Command, ect...--Stephen C Wells (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Unification and beyond" section[edit]

Perhaps someone could add this to the article. The intro to this section has a quote from an unnamed Canadaian naval officer. The author of the quote was Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock, DSO, DSC, CD, RCN, who was Vice Chief of Naval Staff in Ottawa in the early 1960s. He was forced to retire for opposing unification. The quote is from "The Thunder and the Sunshine," the second volume of his memoirs.

This is from <> at the bottom of the page. (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to move to Canadian Armed Forces?[edit]

In the past several months, the Canadian government has slowly been changing from using "Canadian Forces" to "Canadian Armed Forces", the actual offial name. Within the last month, the official website has switched to using the full title in the heading and most other places on the website. Is it time to move the page to Canadian Armed Forces? - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from discussion number five above, this conversation has happened a few times over the years. To be clear though, the official name has not changed, only the term preferred by the Government of Canada. As an article is named based purely on common usage and not the official name or even the name used by the institution itself, it really falls to what most Canadians are using. Have you noticed which is being used in newspapers, newscasts, and other media? trackratte (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Nationality of speakers isn't really a consideration in WP:COMMONNAME, though of course it will figure in the frequency of occurrences, WPENGVAR notwithstanding. What little Canadian media I've read probably isn't enough to make a judgement on its current usage in Canada, though what I have read shows that CAF is probably increasing over CF. "Canadian Armed Forces" gets about 3.52 million ghits, while "Canadian Forces" gets about 2.97 million, for whatever it's worth, which is not much for a raw search. The reason I mentioned the website's change in name wasn't to prove it's the official name. However, the updating of the site may well signify a shift in usage from this point on, if it's not evidence that the shift has mostly occurred already. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually support CAF for this articles as I simply think its a more accurate title, however I would like to avoid having to change an article title every time the bureaucracy issues a new directive. However, if the facts bear out that CAF is now the most common usage, then I'm all for it. trackratte (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
And to add, the most recent edition of the Maple Leaf quotes the CDS as stating something to the effect of the CAF and CF are both correct, and that the Forces will continue to use CF in all rules and regulations (such as QR&Os for example), but will use CAF in all other external writing. I can't seem to find an online PDF of the Maple Leaf since they changed the entire website around, perhaps someone else will have better lucktrackratte (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Canadian Armed Forces appears to have replaced Canadian Forces in all new military communiques and press releases. CF is being kept on for all existing orders and policy documents only until they are officially superseded or amended, so it would seem we are witnessing a phasing-out of the use of CF/Canadian Forces as the preferred nomenclature. GrahamNoyes (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"NationX Armed Forces" is commonly used in Wikipedia. Using common encyclopaedic nomenclature is a good thing and helps connect the topics. British Armed Forces is actually not commonly used either, yet it is the name of that article. I think of it as the title of the article, not the name of the organisation. So I'm all in favour. Even if the government changes it to Canadian Forces in future, this article can remain CAF.--IseeEwe (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Decade of Darkness[edit]

I undid someone's malicious edit which deleted the entry about the Canadian Forces' decade of darkness (the period from roughly 1994-2004). The entry was well sourced and was added to this page as suggested in a deletion review under the same name. Please do not remove it again.JOttawa16 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the POV text. This same text was found to be unacceptable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness and more recently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decade_of_Darkness it certainly does not belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ahunt:, I have not seen the text you removed, but it is my understanding that material which is deemed not wp:notable enough to desreve its own page on Wikipedia, can still be added to an existing article as long as it is properly sourced? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not a problem of notability, if you read the text removed you can see it was highly biased and a politically-motivated attack piece. The consensus at AfD was that this sort of thing is inappropriate on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ahunt: I am no big expert on wikipolicy, but it has been my understanding that the way to handle biased information is to provide a counter point (referenced) -- not to remove what one deems to be biased? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That really applies to issues that have two sides that require balance, this was just a political attack. Regardless, the AfD decision was that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Are you saying that political attacks do not have two sides? Or are you saying that the "attack piece" is not sourced? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No I am saying the consensus at AfD was that the whole thing failed WP:NPOV. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ahunt: I don't believe that wp:AfD discussions can be used as rationale to remove content from unrelated articles. But then I am no expert -- please correct if i am wrong. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This really isn't a technicality, it is a plain practical issue. A wide range of editors reviewed the text and determined that it was a POV attack piece and doesn't belong here. That is a WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This information was well sourced and it happened - simple as that. The deletion review page suggests that the information on the decade of darkness belongs here on the Canadian Forces page and on the perpetrator's page, Jean Chretien. This is complying with the deletion review suggestions and ensuring the entry is neutrally written and well backed up by facts. JOttawa16 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any such suggestion being made in the DRV. Rather that it Appears to be advocacy, implying original research. It was suggested you userspace-draft a policy-compliant new article, not continue to push your current POV elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no such suggestion there. The DRV is not complete, but the trend so far is to endorse the AfD result which concluded that this material is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Stealthily reinserting the AfDed text into articles after AfD is not a good faith way to proceed. Also by using words like "perpetrator" above you are showing your bias and your continued inability to contribute to Wikipedia in the required neutral manner. I would also like to remind you that two different editors have now removed this material from this article. If it is removed a third time and you revert it you will be liable for a block as explained at WP:3RR. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The text has now been removed a third time by a third editor. As I noted above if you revert this you will be liable to be blocked for edit warring. - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The following is the exact entry that keeps being maliciously deleted. Please cite specific issues with the material as it is presented and offer constructive solutions for having it addressed. JOttawa16 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(NOTE: Text found unsuitable for Wikipedia at AfD and DRV redacted)
First, please assume good faith instead of making personal attacks. Secondly, posting article content that has been deemed unsuitable for articles on the talk page is yet another no-no... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You can note that the DRV has now concluded and it has endorsed the original AfD decision that this subject and the text are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


I believe that most people take the word "deployed" to refer to any Canadian Armed Force member serving outside of Canada. Deployed in this article, seems to refer to the CAF definition which is more short term and expeditionary in nature. I think that we can safely and for good reason expand this definition to the former, and include all members serving outside of Canada in any official manner, in NORAD, NATO, secondments to other forces, embassies, High Commissions, and other military postings. --IseeEwe (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Deployed means personnel serving on operations inside or outside of Canada. Secondments, NORAD, embassies, etc. shouldn't be included as they are not deployments, they are postings. If people are using the term wrong then Wikipedia is the perfect platform to explain it to them :) --CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Non consensus move[edit]

Will bring this up before there is a big edit war again. The page has just been moved with the reasoning being "Moved to current common name per talk page consensus", This is completely incorrect as seen above by the many talks. I suggest we stick with the norm and start a new talk on the matter an RfC on the matter. Lets try to keep a cool head here...lets assume good faith on BilCat part here. I would also agree to RAF...but lest see what other have to say.-- Moxy (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

TBH I don't understand the problem. I'm a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we did receive a directive two years ago to refer to it as the CAF rather than the CF. According to the National Defence Act either could be used, since the CAF is the one service of the CF, but if the organization is currently favouring CAF why would we keep it at CF here? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus in the above section seems clear to me, that CAF is now the common name along with being the official name. We've waited over two years since the directive was issued to move the page, and I reverted earlier moves at least twice as being premature. If you want to run an RFC, that's fine with me, but I honestly don't think it's necessary. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
RFC is definitely not the way to go here, CAF is now the common usage as Ajraddatz stated above.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)