Jump to content

Talk:Conscription/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Map out of Date

Crimea is administered by Russia, not Ukraine.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.46.70 (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland

Map: Switzerland does NOT intend to end conscription, pls put it back to red!

 Done BushelCandle (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam war protesters

In USA Vietnam war protesters carried signs that said "Draft is Slavery." I've seen it in news coverage, & I'm looking for photos. Pepper9798 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck! BushelCandle (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Conscription Denmark

I've added some information about conscription in Denmark under the category 'Europe'. Could someone please re-read it? And I don't know how to make a box under my comments on the talk page. On the German Wikipedia, we have something called {{Erledigt|--Momo Monitor (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)}} to close the talk, and let the bot archive it. --Momo Monitor (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.
Here, humans typically do that - if they remember... BushelCandle (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Conscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Conscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Conscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of conscription -discussion has been started in dispute resolution

Please comment, so we can find a consensus on the definition of conscription: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Definition_of_conscription_and_the_conscription_map

"There has been a disagreement on whether Norway and Lithuania have conscription[1], and what color these countries should have in Wikimedia's Conscription map of the world [2].

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." [3] Compulsory enlistment means that people are forced to join the military. However according to this source[4] norwegian people are not forced to join: "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance". Also in Lithuania all recent recruits have been volunteers [5], so people are not forced to join there either.

Since Norway or Lithuania do not force people to join the army, there is no compulsory enlistment and thus, Norway and Lithuania do not have conscription. These countries should be colored blue on the map, and not red, as they are now colored. I have tried to change the map multiple times, but have been reported for vandalism. Other people tend to think a country has conscription, if compulsory enlistment is possible according to the law.

We should use the correct definition of conscription when coloring the map and Wikipedia should also contain relevant information. It is not very relevant if the law makes it possible to force people to join the army. What is relevant, is if people are actually forced to join." Roopeluhtala (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Roopeluhtala makes a convincing case. Either a country currently applies actual conscription ("boots in barracks") or it does not. To take a random example France (the first country to introduce conscription in the modern sense) now maintains a all-volunteer armed forces but still requires registration. No compulsory training or actual service of even the most rudimentary nature is involved. Registration is simply an administrative convenience for some hypothetical future crisis. On the other hand there are a significant number of national armies where actual obligatory service of the style common until the late 20th century is still in effect. The map should reflect these realities, although "loose enforcers" such as Norway might be distinguished by references in the main text.Buistr (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Buistr or someone else could you please revert the map to version "04:48, 9 December 2015", where Norway and Lithuania are blue? The definition of conscription should be clear now to everyone who has read this conversation. I cannot revert the map. Thanks! --Roopeluhtala (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding of what conscription actually is. Conscription is a matter of law. Roopeluhtala's previous comment that de jure doesn't matter encapsulates this misunderstanding. Of course it matters. Enforcement matters too. But I don't think a coloured map can capture the different situation in every different country.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Jack Upland wrote: "Conscription is a matter of law." So, if there is a country, where young men are forced to go to the army, but this practice is not written in their law, you would claim that they do not have conscription? And vice versa, if in some country conscription is written in the law, but nobody is forced to join, you would claim that they have conscription? --Roopeluhtala (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
If it were up to Roopeluhtala conscription would be defined as being in thrown into jail for objecting - he argued in earlier discussions that Austria has no conscription because nobody was punished recently. He has retreated somewhat, but still argues based on his own arbitrary definitions. And that's the general problem here: arbitrary - we cannot simply make up our own definition and declare it as general wisdom. There must be scientific material on this. And I don't think his case is very strong - one could argue as well that both Norway and Lithuania simply have the luxury of sizeable numbers of young men not trying to get out of the service. There is no doubt they would enforce it if the numbers dropped. They would not even require a new law for that, giving objectors no legal security at all. Furthermore, all the "volunteers" in Norway and Lithuania most certainly do not have the option to quit service, do they? The whole discussion is also a bit eurocentric. In other parts of the world (and maybe even some parts of Europe) you may just bribe your way out of conscription, making it effectively a matter of money. This would open the discussion which percentage of young men skirting the draft is required that it does not constitute conscription anymore. I agree with Jack: a few colors cannot sufficiently categorize such a complicated matter. If we want to determine the individual status for 150+ countries, we will get nowhere. I think we would be much better off if we just represented if the law provides for conscription or not. How it is applied is so individual that we will never get a consistent and undisputed classification. --Hansbaer (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hansbaer wrote: "There is no doubt they would enforce it if the numbers dropped." There is no way of knowing this, they might also raise the benefits to attract more recruits. And more importantly, we should not make assumptions about the future in Wikipedia, instead the information in Wikipedia should reflect the current situation. Hansbaer wrote: "Furthermore, all the "volunteers" in Norway and Lithuania most certainly do not have the option to quit service, do they?" It is not relevant, since conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment". Besides in many countries that have a volunteer army (US and UK), it is not possible to quit whenever you want. You could be sentenced for being AWOL (away without official leave). Hansbaer wrote: "I think we would be much better off if we just represented if the law provides for conscription or not." We would not be better off, since the definition of conscription does not say anything about the law. There is conscription only if there is compulsory enlistment. Roopeluhtala (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Conscription is a matter of law – or lawless force. If there is a law mandating conscription, then conscription exists. If, in a lawless situation, people are forcibly recruited, that could be called conscription.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Jack Upland wrote: "If there is a law mandating conscription, then conscription exists." Is your claim based on some definition of conscription and if so, where can this definition be found? According to Wikipedia conscription is defined as compulsory enlistment. A law does not make enlistment compulsory, instead a law can only mandate compulsory enlistment. Wikipedia is not a place to make up your own definitions. 80.223.84.69 (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
To Jack Upland: Law can make it possible to implement compulsory enlistment to army. However, if for example there are enough volunteers, there is no need to use compulsion to recruit. Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment". If all recruits are volunteers, there is no compulsory enlistment, and thus, no conscription. Even if the law makes it possible to force people to army, it does not mean there is conscription. 80.223.84.69 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, I don't think that this can be summed up with colours on a map. What time frame are you talking about? If someone is not conscripted today, does that mean there is no conscription???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
If there are currently no conscripts serving, who have been forced to join the military, there is currently no conscription. Information in Wikipedia should reflect current situation, and it should not contain unreferenced assumptions about the future. Could someone please revert the map to version "04:48, 9 December 2015", where Norway and Lithuania are blue? 91.152.177.207 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of IP users involved in this discussion, who, based on their writing style and arguments, sound a lot like User:Roopeluhtala. Could you, Roopeluhtala, or some of you IP addresses, make a definitive statement whether you are different or separate physical persons? Otherwise, this looks a lot like sockpuppetry. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion and its goals, I would like to state the following. There is a real-life person called Roope Luhtala, who has previously been a chairman of a Finnish fringe libertarian group called "Edistyspuolue". This person was involved, during the years 2013-14, in a failed attempt to collect signatures for a citizen's initiative to abolish conscription in Finland [6]. (The campaign got some 3,300 signatures out of the 50,000 required.) One of the main arguments of the campaign was that Norway doesn't have a real conscription.[7] Since the campaign ended, fi:User:Roopeluhtala has been editing fi-Wikipedia articles on conscription with a pretty heavy POV. If User:Roopeluhtala is the real-life Roope Luhtala, there is a very good reason to assume that he is pushing a POV to affect a real-life political debate in Finland. Thus, no good faith should be assumed. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It fits very well into the narrative here. --Hansbaer (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Denmark

The map is incorrect. We have a conscription in Denmark, according to the danish constitution §81 and the 'Værnepligtloven'. --Momo Monitor (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A law can make it possible to implement compulsory enlistment to army. However, if for example there are enough volunteers, there is no need to use compulsion to recruit. Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment". If all recruits are volunteers, there is no compulsory enlistment, and thus, no conscription. Even if the law makes it possible to force people to army, it does not mean there is conscription. In Denmark all or almost all recruits have been volunteers in recent years. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the map. It does not make sense to keep Norway and Lithuania red and Denmark blue. --Hansbaer (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree it makes no sense to keep Norway and Lithuania red. They should be blue as also Denmark should be. None of these countries uses compulsion to enlist people. Roopeluhtala (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I am male and from Denmark. What you claim isn't fully true. They (Forsvarets Dag) told us there, that they have a lot of volunteers, but that 3% weren't volunteers last year. The law is called Værnepligt (Cherish Duty) for all men and only Værnetjeneste (Cherish Service) for women and volunteers. So yes, we have a lot of volunteers in Denmark, but it's still compulsion. And I think, that when the Danish Government say that it's Conscription, and when people are forced into the army, it's Conscription. --Momo Monitor (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We have to use the right definition of conscription. According to Wikipedia conscription "is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service."[8] In Denmark very few are forced to enlist, so system is mostly a volunteer system. [9] There are countries like Finland and South Korea where majority of young men are forced to join, and if you decline, you have to go to prison. It is misleading to present Denmark in the map as same colour as Finland and South Korea, because Denmark has a de facto voluntary system. 80.223.84.69 (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If the law makes something obligatory, that is legal compulsion, even if the likelihood of being actually punished is negligible. However, I have a more personal question for you. Are you user:Roopeluhtala? --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 --Momo Monitor (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lithuania has a volunteer army, not conscription

User Hansbaer keeps changing[10] the article to claim that Lithuania has conscription. According to definition conscription [11] is "the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service."

However all lithuanian army recruits last year were volunteers [12], and it is likely that all of the recruits this year will also be volunteers [13]: "Minister of National Defense Juozas Olekas, who is in favor of a professional army, hopes that just like last year, all those doing mandatory service will do so voluntarily."

Since all of the current recruits are volunteers, there is currently no compulsory enlistment and thus no conscription in Lithuania. Please comment so we can establish a majority view on this. Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How long do you want to continue playing this game? Obviously until you are banned. --Hansbaer (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What part of the term "compulsory enlistment" you do not understand? --Roopeluhtala (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Argentina maybe has wrong colour

Argentina is currently blue on the map. However conscription is written in their law: "Every Argentine citizen is obliged to bear arms in defence of his country and of this Constitution". If insufficient volunteers present themselves for enlistment in the armed forces, art. 19 of Law 24.429 allows the government to introduce compulsory military service. [14]

So the situation is similar to Lithuania or Norway, where service is voluntary in practice, but it is legally possible to force people to the army. Could either user Hansbaer or MPorciusCato please change Argentina to red colour on the map? You clearly know the true meaning of the term conscription. Roopeluhtala (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree in thinking that Argentina's position is similar to the majority of countries with both a written constitution and all-volunteer armed forces (except in time of war or other dire emergency).
The colour on the map should remain blue to denote that Argentina is a country where there is no current compulsory enlistment of people in a national service (although there remain provisions for it to be introduced in time of war or other dire emergency, like Lithuania and the Philippines). BushelCandle (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
On the second thought, I agree with you. However, it would be interesting to hear what users Hansbaer and MPorciusCato think about this issue. Currently there is a problem with Lithuania, as user Hansbaer has changed it to red on the map, but in the country listing it says no conscription. [15] Roopeluhtala (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, a constitutional statement authorising conscription is not "conscription". However, a country with an a statute law detailing a system of drafting is practicing conscription, even if the draftees were voluntary. Their formal voluntary service is affected by the fact that there is a legal possibility of being drafted anyhow. In such situation, the formation of volition is not free and the service is no longer quite voluntary. (The existence or absence of enforced penalties is immaterial, because a law-abiding citizen complies with the law even without the threat of sanction.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
MPorciusCato wrote: "However, a country with an a statute law detailing a system of drafting is practicing conscription, even if the draftees were voluntary." Your opinion of the definition of conscription differs from the definition used in Wikipedia: "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." [16]. Voluntary enlistment is the exact opposite of compulsory enlistment. Thus you should either abstain from editing this page since your definition is the exact opposite of current definition, or you should try to get your definition accepted as the new definition. Roopeluhtala (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No conscription in The Philippines

The map incorrectly shows The Philippines as red. There hasn't been conscription there since 1974. Eliminate1337 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but last time I looked there was a note for editors in the source code... BushelCandle (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I accidentally screwed up editing the file to remove the note to change the Philippines colour as it had been changed to blue. Can anyone fix that?Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Conscription. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Conscription in the United States should mention Puerto Rico

United state does impose conscription in Puerto Rico by the Jones–Shafroth Act#Conscription and it is the state that sent more people to Vietnam war, so it should be mentioned. (the source of the last statement is a footnote on "Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina" from Eduardo Galeano).

--El Hoy (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conscription. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Denmark

The Danish conscription act places an up to 4 months jailtime penalty for total objection. The source in the article, that, according to the article mentions that no total objectors have been punished actually says that "More recent cases of total objection are presently not known" - and even mentions that the last known case resulted in a penalty. Also the law clearly states that total objection results in up to 4 months jailtime, so that remark should be removed.--XoravaX (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would keep Denmark colored purple. We agree that a clear majority are volunteers, and according to Jyllands Posten conscription has ended in practice.[17] There are no recent cases of imprisoned total objectors. There has been one case in 2014 where a person voluntarily signed up but objected afterwards, which resulted in 14 days of home arrest.[18] The punishment for total objectors cannot be harsher than that 14 days, and it is doubtful they are punished at all. Anyway since a significant majority are volunteers, the system is not a conscription based system in practice. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Orange color definition in the map has changed.

Orange countries were previously defined as plan to abolish conscription within 3 years. Problem is that often the government does not give exact date for the change, and if no date is given, it is unclear whether we should color the country orange or not. That's why in the english version the definition was changed to "Plan to abolish conscription in the near future". However this is ambiguous too, since the near future is up to definition. The best definition would in my opinion be "Plan to abolish conscription by the current government." I will change the definition of the english and finnish version to that, and hopefully other languages will follow. If you speak other languages, please update both orange and purple definitions in your own language. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Map legend changed for purple color - now defined more clearly

Old description of purple was "Conscription by law, but not in practice.", but this is too ambiguous. I changed the description to "Conscription by law, but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". The new description is better since it defines the criteria more clearly.

We have had a debate whether Denmark should be colored purple or red. In Denmark only a small minority of men (3%) are compelled to do service, and 97% of the men enlist voluntarily. Since the danish system is mostly a volunteer-based, it is informative to present Denmark in a different color than countries where a majority of the men are compelled to do the service, like South Korea or Greece. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User XoravaX has pointed out, that countries which do not compel anyone to service, but have conscription in law, could be colored both blue and purple. This could be avoided by changing the purple description to "More than 0% but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". Would that be ok for XoravaX? I ask you first so we can avoid an edit war. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenland

Greenland isn't an independent country, but part of the Danish Realm (which has a military), so depicting it as having no armed forces is incorrect. The Danish realm is constitutionally defined as a unitary state, which has just devolved powers to Greenland and the Faroes. Greenlanders (and Faroese) are exempt from conscription, but they have the right to serve in the Danish military on equal terms. The military actively recruit Greenlanders and held information meetings in seven Greenlandic towns last year. However you want to depict that situation it can not be done by saying Greenland doesn't have a military.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Slavery?

Should there be a link to the Slavery Wikipedia page when 10s of Millions were press-ganged or conscripted into the military against their will, often to die thousands of miles from homeland and family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conscription. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conscription. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden has conscription now, but with a limited part of the age group being drafted. Is there a way of editing the graphic short of pulling up photoshop? WineRedPsy (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sweden does not have conscription by definition. Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment", but in Sweden only motivated volunteers are selected to the service. According to the defence ministry spokeswoman[19]: "The authorities choose the ones who are willing, interested and motivated." Roopeluhtala (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conscription. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Countries that Abolished Conscription and Countries that just don't use it

Wouldn't it be much better and informative to distinguish between countries that abolished conscription and countries that have it but are just not using it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "countries that have it but are just not using it"? Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service.", so what does it in your opinion mean to "have" compulsory enlistment but not to "use" it? --Roopeluhtala (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean countries that can use it when necessary, but currently are not using it, like the U.S., just to cite an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
What is possible according to the law, is not that relevant. What really affects people is. The law can be changed easily, but if the law is not enforced, it does not affect people's life. Also if we have a different color for countries, which permit conscription in legislation, but do not implement it in real life, it will be quite a lot of work to go through the legislation of each country. Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"The law can be changed easily" is an argument that can easily be applied to any other subject, also the list of conscription laws by country on this very article emphasizes if a country abolished conscription or not, so how would it be difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Killing

Do conscripts kill people during their active duty? 83.28.188.30 (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

They are the same as any other soldier.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Female Conscription

A recent edit summary commented "no pre-1989 communist-socialist state had female conscription". But China had female conscription from 1949.[20] This article says that the USSR had some female conscription in WW2. Reports on the situation in North Korea are confusing, but I think it has had female conscription for a long time.[21] Related, to this is the statement "The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until the late-20th century" which I removed from the article. In fact, large numbers of Soviet women (conscripts or not) served in WW2. Women also fought for the Communist side in the Vietnam War. Etc. This reflects the Western experience, not the global experience. I think it would be good to have an accurate global history of female conscription, rather than vaguely saying "traditionally" men only have been conscripted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Moldova

Moldova must be colored orange on the map, as it is in the process of abolishing conscription. [22]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:6465:4CA4 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

purple: "are compelled to enlist" -> "are recruited"

I changed the description of purple color to "Active draft system, but less than 20% of the whole age group are recruited", as this is more accurate than "...compelled to enlist". For example in Sweden and Norway no one is compelled to enlist, but some are drafted voluntarily, so it was a bit misleading to keep them in the purple category. However the new category is more suitable for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopeluhtala (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

Although Crimea is recognised as Ukrainian territory by United Nations resolution 68/262, there is a forced conscription imposed by occupants from Russian Federation. This fact ought to be emphasised in the text or to serve as a need of a new category introduced with a distinct colour, denoting forced conscription against the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.172.178 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This article confuses conscription with mobilization.

--Reciprocist (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Conscription chart

I created this chart using this article as source. Chart will help people see the percentages countries in the world having or not having conscription. I was curious about the percentages and I had to count them, since there were no chart like this. Please give feedback about the chart and also put the chart in appropriate place in the article. Ufo karadagli (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This info is also in file description page but I felt need to add it to here too:

Updated Gomoloko (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Estonia

Estonia has currently an active conscription system, much like Finland. Refer: https://mil.ee/en/defence-forces/compulsory-military-service/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSuperWolfy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam

I am surprised to see Vietnam marked as a country with conscription. I lived in Vietnam and never heard about this, furthermore the article has no information about conscription in Vietnam Johnotm (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Conscription in Vietnam Yodas henchman (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ireland never had conscription

Ireland has never had conscription, so including it in the map under "Conscription abolished, no longer enforced" is misleading. [IP address deleted at user request] 06:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine plans to abolish conscription

Shouldnt we remove Ukraine from the list of countries who plan to abolish conscription, the Russian invasion changed everything, they even forbade males 18-60 from leaving the country 45.239.136.237 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conscription/Archive_2&oldid=1242009755"