Talk:Conscription

Removal of the list

The list of countries with conscription should be removed for a few reasons:

1. It is not needed in two articles, military service has far more detailed list
2. The list is based on a 1997 source, by NationMaster Quote: "DEFINITION: A description of the status of conscription in the nation in 1997. ". It's very outdated.
3. Although most countries have been updated despite the 1997 source, it is ridiculous to state "sources differ" in some cases. The other source is from 1997, the other from 2011 - they do differ for a simple reason: the other is outdated. --Pudeo' 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

The DEFINITION quote which you mention above is indeed present in the Nationmaster:Conscription source. I don't know what the intended import of that might be, but you might note that the table in the Nationmaster:Conscription source is headed, "Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country", and that info for (most) individual countries listed there is individually sourced further to a number of organizations named there as sources. I have in past (post-1997) years edited the table at issue in order to syncronize it with changes in the cited Nationmaster sources.

I have a concern about preserving content. AFAICT, the Military service article does not duplicate all of the info re conscription which is contained in the table.

Just as a historical note, a smaller version of this table was originally added to this article some years ago following on talk page discussion speculating that factors other than conscription status which the table lists in sortable columns (GDP, type of govt, size, population, etc.) might impact a country's policy re conscription. I'm not offering an opinion on whether this was or might still be a good reason for providing the table (either here or elsewhere), but that is the reason it was provided initially. The table has grown over the years as individual editors have added info on various countries not listed there at the time.

I think this needs a closer look. I looked at a few of the early entries both in the table and in the Military service article.

• Albania

• The table lists Albania as having conscription, per the Nationmaster source. That source cites Amnesty international (AI) and War Resisters International (WRI) as the source of that information.

• AI doesn't say anything relevant in their 2011 annual report]. I haven't checked earlier reports.
• WRI says here that Albania has been reported as intending to end conscription by 2010. There is some commentary there about that, and the conclusion that from the media reports, it is not clear whether conscription will be completely abolished or only suspended, and that it is also not clear if the constitution will also be changed.

• The Military service article says that Albania's conscription ended completely at the end of 2010 and the forces become an all-professional army, citing this supporting source which speaks (apparently before-the-fact) of Albania's intent to create a professional army by the end of 2010.

• Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia are listed in the table but are not covered in the Military service article. Barbados is listed in the article but not in the table. The info for Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Belize agrees between the two.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina

• The table says sources differ

• Nationmaster says yes, citing WRI. My guess would be that they relied on this report updated in May of 2005, which said, "Conscription is regulated by the 2004 Defence Law, which entered into force in May 2004. ..." WRI said here in November of 2005 that Bosnia intended to formally end conscription in 2006 but had already ended it in practice; here, in June of 2006, they said, "Clarification would be welcome as to whether the abolition of obligatory military service is absolute, or whether there are any provisions allowing its reinstatement in time of war or national emergency, and also as to the situation of the large number of former conscripts who have been listed on the reserve strength of the armed forces of the two entities. Are they now automatically released from reservist duties; if not, is there any provision for individuals to apply for release as conscientious objectors?". The table also contains an unsupported and {{cn}} tagged assertion that conscription is not pricticed.

• The Military service article says that conscription was abolished as of 1 January 2007, citing this 2006 source which reports that the conscription system was terminated on 1 January 2006.

The above goes further than is required by WP. WP does not require editors to track sources cited by its cited sources where such sources are named. WP simply requires that sources which differ be given due weight. The above does indicate to me, though, that it would not be an overall improvement in WP to discard info in the table in favor of the info in the Military service article.

The entry for China in the Military service article is intresting. It contains "[2]", "[1]", and "[4]"; apparently artifacts of cut & paste operations from another WP article after rendering, instead of from the wikitext, or possibly from some uncited source outside of WP. This ought to be fixed. added: I've fixed that with this edit.

I would suggest that, since conscription is a narrower topic than military service, the info that the Military service article treat this article as a summary style article on the topic, provide a {{main}} link or a {{see also}} to it at appropriate points. Also, the two articles ought to be audited for excessive redundancy and contradictions. In the meantime, perhaps {{contradict other}} tags ought to be placed in both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep the table then. But it needs to be updated, Albania indeed has no conscription anymore since 2010 because it has a development program with NATO. Bosnia and Herzegovina has done the same. Heck, what is questionable about France's conscription status? I'll just remove the "sources differ" from the clear cases.--Pudeo' 12:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't contest that for now unless I happen to spot something which I perceive as a problem on a case-by-case basis. However, I do disagree generally based on my understanding of WP:V and WP:DUE. I'm involved in a discussion about this here, if you're interested. Generally, I think that DUE requires that if sources A and B are generally reliable but differ, both should be presented and the difference highlighted (an exception to this which would be relevant here is where one source is less dated than the other and is clearly presenting information resulting from a change since the publication of the earlier source). Some editors disagree, and feel that a case-by-case subjective editorial judgement that one source is not factual is sufficient to suppress that source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the list

While I have no problem with the list being included in the article, I will say it is very inconsistant. for example it fails to mention that Jamaica and Australia are monarchies. It says that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm but does not say that Australia is. I think it could do with a cleanup. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

The new constitution being drafted in Iceland includes an article that explicitly prohibits the introduction of conscription in Iceland. I don't know of any other country with that kind of stance against conscription so I suppose it would be a notable fact to include in this article. Perhaps it is best to wait until the new constitution is formally in force. --157.157.69.51 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A Vandal...

Removing the line "Who Claimed mandatory conscription to be unconstitutional." where it was inserted into a paragraph where it didn't belong.Obviously someone who believes in the draft is attempting to push they're beliefs on random people by inserting random nonsense lines inside of this article.Just warning people to watch out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Norway and Venezuela made voluntary the army

Norway: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541

Venezuela: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those seem to support an assertion that conscription has been ended in those countries. They might support assertions that an end of conscription is being considered, or is planned, or something similar. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Till 2023 Turkey will have proffesional army

Turkish AKP party(is the goverment), told that have plan to make the army proffesional.

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&ArticleID=1061983&Date=01.09.2011&CategoryID=78

Turkey need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Denmark not have obligatory military service

http://www.berlingske.dk/leder:aid=449936/# http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=322948 http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=322885

Denmark need to become blue color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk • contribs) 06:08, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Your cited sources were dead links when I tried to look at them. Googling around, I did find this 2010 source at which speaks of a four-month conscription period for Denmark. This undated source (apparently current as of at least 2009) gives some background about the legal basis for conscription in Denmark. I also found this report dated February 2009 by the Dansk Institut for Militære Studier, the title of which asks, "What if We Gave Up Conscription?"

AFAICS, these sources support an assertion that, at least as of 2010, conscription in Denmark was legal and was being practiced. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Exist military service at Denmark, but is voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk • contribs) 08:57, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, but I have seen no supporting source confirming it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Uzbekistan planning professional army at the future

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051404.shtml http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/uzbek-army.htm

Need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan plan to make voluntary the army

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/03/30/296630/Premier-sets.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

United States : Post WW-II

This edit attracted my attention to this section. This section of the article currently says, without support, "In 1973, President Richard Nixon abandoned the draft and by 1975, President Gerald Ford abolished it. From then on registration was voluntary. ... In 1980 Jimmy Carter unsuccessfully tried to reinstitute the Selective Service Project." A quick look at http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm turns up "Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service." Assertions in this subsection need a verification check and, if confirmed, should cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The US most certainly DOES require registration for the selective service (http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm . The article still shows the US as not mandating registration. President Carter restored the requirement by executive order in 1980 http://www.sss.gov/QA.HTM#quest8. There has been pressure to return to an active draft in 2005 (http://www.cqpress.com/product/Researcher-Draft-Debates-v15-28.html), and the legislation currently does not prohibit use of conscripts. Further, as recently as 1987, judicial conscription of convicts was still present; in 1987, the Dept of the Army ceased accepting judicially ordered individuals, according to the Stars and Stries article in 1987, the other services had ceased accepting them about a decade earlier. One of the guys I went through basic with in 1987 joined under judicial mandate for a non-violent misdemeanor conviction, and the DI's made it public knowledge to the platoon. Wfh (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nigeria not have military service

Nigeria not have obligatory military service. Have only obligatory "social service" for those who have diploma, to they have experience after their studies.

This is not obligatory military service, so Nigeria need to be blue color at the map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Service_Corps

History of Conscription

There is no link to the serious problems that arose in Canada for both WWI and WWII, e.g., the article Conscription_Crisis_of_1917 G. Robert Shiplett 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Russia plan to make professional-voluntary the army

Medvedev told that after 5-7 years, Russia will have army 100% professional-voluntary.

At army will be 90% professionals, and 10% volunteers.

www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050053057054055.html www.aif.ru/society/news/101586 http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20111125/497704011.html http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=641678

Russia need to become orange color at the map.