This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
Summary of the number of countries fought in
The following sentence is worth including in the Article in my view because it is a fact well researched by a historian and is relevant and interesting to readers of an encyclopaedia, particularly those who may be new to the subject of British military history. --Whizz40 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
During its history, British forces or forces with a British mandate have invaded, had some control over or fought conflicts in 171 of the world's 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries.
Just appears to be tabloid trivia, The UK or more the British Empire had control of big bits of the world for nearly two hundred years so one would expect it to have had a few clashes during that time, also comparing it with a list of modern countries is probably misleading as well. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
See for example Military history of France, which has a similar sentence in the opening paragraph. Notwithstanding the points above, which I understand as a point of view on initially reading the sentence, this statement is based on research of battles fought compared with a consistent definition of countries (if the definition of countries changed over time then there would be a problem with using it). It is published in a book by a recognised historian and there are examples of similar usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Other than views on style, are there strong counterarguments to including this sentence? Or on balance can this be considered a sourced fact that is relevant and interesting to readers on this topic? --Whizz40 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly according to the wikipedia article Stuart Laycock seems to be most notable for producing this book, even this article has some scathing remarks about it. It also appears to cover the time before 1707 which is not relevant to this article. If it was a serious work of history then the list could be referenced from reliable sources and added to the article but I suspect most of the mentions are trivia and not notable to the military history of the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Criticism is a normal part of book review, the same person praises other aspects of the book in the same article. The large majority of the events occurred after 1707, in line with the growth of the British Empire, as noted above. The statement is neutral (it doesn’t say this is the best, the most or the largest), it is verified in a book (as far as I have seen there is no criticism of the accuracy of facts contained in the book), it is on topic and it is notable to make it interesting.--Whizz40 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
OK does is say how many were after 1707 ? or how many were just ticks in boxes to make a good headline to sell the book? I also doubt that a lot of the countries didnt actually exist when the British were somehow involved. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)