Template talk:United States Armed Forces and American Map: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Bahamut0013 (talk | contribs) |
Cooljuno411 (talk | contribs) ←Redirected page to Map of the United States |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
{{WPMILHIST|class=NA|US=yes|National=yes}} |
|||
=State Defense Forces= |
|||
Should we include a link to [[State Defense Force]] in this navbox? Comments? Thoughts? [[User:Streltzer|Streltzer]] ([[User talk:Streltzer|talk]]) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No it should not'''. {{UnitedStatesCode|32|109}} of the [[United States Code|U.S. Code of law]] specifically states that the [[State Defense Force]] is an organized militia ("Notes" section) and is not recognized as a reserve of active component of the U.S. military. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::While I agree with that point, are we considering just the [[Military of the United States]], or military in the United States? While I would vote the former, there is really no other place to navigate to them. We could link to it in the navbox and note that the defense forces are unofficial militias. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The State Defense Force is not considered as military by law though, but I'm not opposed to a link somewhere to get notority for them. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 00:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::By law or by fact, militias are military organizations, and they are indeed government sponsored (albeit state government sponsored). Let's give a day or so for more than three people to chime in. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Militia is not military. That's like saying the local police force is military. Militia is made up of ordinary citizens, not federal appointed regular forces. While militia does mean different things in other countries, I thought that this was about U.S. military not another countries' definition. However, I'm inclined to give it a day or two. :-) [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Take a look at [[militia]] and [[paramilitary]]. Being federally-sponsored is not the only definition of military, in the US or otherwise. Militias may not be professional forces, but they are armed soldiers that fight other military forces. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The federal government funds a lot of programs that are not federally recognized. The [[National Guard]] is considered militia in the eyes of the goverment, however the [[National Guard of the United States]] is a reserve military component. Your point is moot. The [[Militia Act of 1903]] established a seperation between the military and miltia. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The National Guard of the United States is '''both''' a state militia, and when activated, a federal reserve. The distinction given in the article [[National Guard Bureau]] seems to refer to the state militia... which is the [[state defense force]]: an organized militia for a state the supports the organized federal national guard. So, in essence, each state has two organized militas: the federal National Guard and its own national guard/state defense force. While [[Title 32 of the United States Code|32 USC]] does provide a distinguishment between a state national guard and a state defense force, it doesn't provide a distinguishment between the state and federal national guards; it seems that the federal government sees the national guard as its own all the time, even when not called up, but so does the state... the National Guard is, again, both state and federal! Trying to distinguish between National Guard, National Guard of the United States, and State militia is tricky because a given unit can shift between definitions with an order and a bit of paperwork. |
|||
::::::::In any case, you missed my point: the definitions set by the federal government are not necessarily the encyclopedic definitions of Wikipedia. The US Government holds many things to be truth in law, but are not truth in practice, and vice versa. To be properly encyclopedic, we must consider what is reality. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::P.S. take a look at [[Template talk:NGbystate]], I left a message there a while ago and it doesn't seem you have yet responded. |
|||
'''(unindent)'''<BR> |
|||
I think we're both getting to "attached" here and let's not let our differing opinions get ahead of ourselves. I'm on you're side here. :-) I want to help make this template better as much as you do, not hurt it. |
|||
You are incorrect in one thing though. Tile 32, specifically,{{UnitedStatesCode|32|101}}, ''does'' provide a distinction between the National Guard and the National Guard of the United States. Members or units in the National Guard of the United States are federally recognized changing their status from militia to reserve military. The President does not need to receive the consent of their respective state governor to be activated just like regular reserves because consent is already given when the member or unit received its recognition. You are correct that the National Guard is both state and federal but only because the National Guard of the United States receives its troops from the state National Guard. While it "seems" that the federal government has control over the National Gaurd, it is in fact not true. Title 10 limits the President's power over the National Guard establishing the seperation of power between the President and state govenors over nonfederalized state National Guard. If Guard members or units of the National Guard (state National Guard) are not part of the National Guard of the United States, the President must seek the consent of the respective governor before activation. The government has the right to refuse this if he or she deems nesessary. This is reaffirmed in the [[Insurrection Act]], specifically, Pub.L. 110-181 or the National Defense Authorization Act 2008. Also the Militia Act of 1903 does establish the National Guard Bureau but for the management of federalized National Guards not nonferderalized guardsmen. However {{UnitedStatesCode|10|10501}} does establish a channel of communication for nonfederalized National Guard to the Department of Defense. So in the aspect that the differnce appear minute, it definitly establish a seperatation. Now to your point, because of the way the law is written, I do not consider the State Defense Force as part of the United States military. They can not even be called in times of war by the government to help with standing invasion. For example, if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. I didn't leave a response in [[Template talk:NGbystate]] because I didn't disagree with you. :-) [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I forgot, {{UnitedStatesCode|10|10503}} also states that the National Guard Bureau prescribes the training discipline and training requirements/policies for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard and the allocation of Federal funds for the training of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. However, the Bureau does not have managing or operational control over the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. :-) [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:To be honest, I really don't care if it is included in the navbox or not, I'm enjoying the debate. I do try to keep [[WP:OWN]] in mind. |
|||
:I think the crux of the disagreement here is that we have somewhat differing ideas of the scope of the navbox and/or whether the definition of military includes militia. My opinion is that any sort of formal government armed force tasked with a defensive or offensive mission (as opposed to law enforcement or investigation) is military, which includes militia. I feel that the scope of this navbox would includes both regular military, reserve, state militia, and state reserve. It's obvious you don't. |
|||
:I think we can come to a compromise here. We can use this navbox to cover the federal sphere of influence here, wich covers everything but state-only forces and private militias; and then create another navbox ([[Template:Military in the United States]] vs. military '''''of''''' the US) to include all other armed military forces. We could even list private militia (even the wackjobs) on the latter navbox. That would provide navigation for your definition and mine. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::That could work. I have no objections to it. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==piped link== |
|||
As a practical consideration, having a piped link point to a redirect to help distinguish a name is pointless. This is a navigational template, its purpose is to help users navigate between related articles, not establish the fine minutae between the versions of the national guard. Most users wouldn't notice anyway. It is also [[Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken|discouraged per editing guidelines]], see the "exceptions" section. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:While pipe link for this may be bad, I'm trying to help educate people to understand that there is a fine but seperate line between militia and military in the U.S. [[User:Neovu79|Neovu79]] ([[User talk:Neovu79|talk]]) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think your point might be lost on all but the most observant readers. The only reason I noticed (aside from having the navbox in my watchlist) is [[Wikipedia:Popup|popups]]. In any case, the article linked to makes that distinction pretty well. In any case, the first person to use [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]] in the navbox category will fix the redirects anyway. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Why does the link for 'uniforms' in this template, link to the article [[Military uniform]] and not to [[Uniforms of the United States Military]]. A covering article for the [[Uniforms of the United States Army]], [[Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps]], [[Uniforms of the United States Navy]], [[Uniforms of the United States Air Force]] and [[United_States_Coast_Guard#Uniforms|Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard]] pages. [[User:Mr Taz|Mr Taz]] ([[User talk:Mr Taz|talk]]) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Probably because such an article doesn't exist. Should it come into existance, it would obviously be a more approrpriate link. There is no point in having a red link in a navbox, waiting for the redlinked article to be created, when there is a perfectly acceptable alternative article already in existance. |
|||
:If you want to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|be bold]] and make the article, I would be happy to link to it! '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:06, 11 October 2008
Redirect to: