Talk:National service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regarding Silverback's addition. Actually, I meant to move it to an article on 'national service' in the civilian sense. I didn't realize that there was a draft article named this. Why are Singapore & Britain covered in one article anyway? Is it just because of the common name? Seems to me some re-organization of the various draft & any civilian national service articles might be in order. Wolfman 04:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't know compulsory boot camp had anything resembling a civilian sense. Chris 04:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Why categorized as military in UK
As it include description about national service implementation in other countries such as Singapore? Squallwc 08:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we can add in the other two categorisations where appriopriate. Meanwhile, I am thinking of having full articles for each of those countries eventually--Huaiwei 19:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds great. Squallwc 05:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Phrase: 'in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland)'
The phrase 'in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland)' does not make sense. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. The article is attempting to inform readers that a particular nation (UK) had National Service with an exception for one of its regions (NI). Bobblewik (talk) 13:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense. A reasonable alternative would be "In the UK, except for Northern Ireland", but the first form is correct as well. It is just saying "in one place, but not another related place". An equivalent would be "In the Continental United States, but not Hawaii". What would be incorrect would be to say "In Great Britain, except for Northern Ireland", or "In the UK, but not Northern Ireland". (Arwel is correct in saying the formal name of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). -- User: Wardog
The full name of Britain is United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. is it not? The fact that some people, in Northern Ireland seek independence from Britain, affirms the fact that the northern counties are part of the United Kingdom (was Ireland ever a Kingdom?), while at some time in future history, this reality may change. AlMac|(talk) 17:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No it's not. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "Great Britain" is the name of the 8th largest island in the world, upon which you find England, Scotland, and Wales. And yes, there was a Kingdom of Ireland between 1541 and 1800, which happened to have the same king as England. -- Arwel (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- They're quite correct. 'Great Britain' only refers to mainland England, Wales and Scotland. This in now way reduces the fact that NI is a part of the UK, both of which are different entities.
[edit] Categories
There have been several requests to try to organize Category Military since it has over 50 articles and over 50 sub-categories. I am trying to help out, by adding a new sub-category Politics of Military, which will include this, and other articles, where there is sometimes some controversy, such as the topic of very young children being made into child soldiers, also issues of gender, different religions side by side, conscientious objector and so forth. Category Military is a sub-category of War. We do not need to list all articles in the whole hierarchy, do we? AlMac|(talk) 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Politics of Military doesn't make sense as a category. For a start, it should be Politics of the Military, with an article. Second, it should be Politics of the military with a lower case 'm'. Wouldn't 'Military politics' be better? And also, Conscription is already a category of Military. -- Necrothesp 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- "Politics within the Military" is a topic for which I have not seen many articles here. Also there is the topic of Base Closings, and redeploying forces stationed in foreign lands, such as US bases moved out of France and Germany to the new democracies of Central Europe.
- It is evident that there is a great debate in Wiki, and in other places, between people who believe in a strong national defense, and the means to attain it, and people who are squeamish about some of the measures taken to achieve it. Most of us fall on a political spectrum where we agree certain actions needed when our national defense is threatened, yet not approve of some military action where our nation does not appear to be threatened, and there are no obvious humanitarian reasons to launch a rescue operation. Even when we support the military decisions, some of us do not support the way in which some things are done. Thus I proposed this category to encompass this category that is dominated by this recurring political debate. I ended up calling it Politics about Military. AlMac|(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're still using upper case and no article. -- Necrothesp 21:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Am I missing something?
"National Service was the name given to the system of military conscription employed in Great Britain between 1949 and 1960 (although the system of wartime conscription used between 1939 and 1949 was also officially called National Service)." - so wouldn't it be better to say "National Service was the name given to the system of military conscription employed in Great Britain between 1939 and 1960." and have done with it? DavidFarmbrough 12:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- The term National Service is usually taken to refer to the post-war system of conscription. If someone talks about "national service" then that is usually what they mean. It was actually the official term for the system from 1939, but is rarely used outside formal documents for wartime conscription (which was usually referred to as "war service"). -- Necrothesp 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah. The parenthesised bit should be noted in a way like "the term is usually used to refer to the post-war period, as during the war National Service was generally referred to as conscription" or the like. Chris Cunningham 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PoV
"However, many transferred from National Service to voluntary military service and carved themselves an honourable career within the British Armed Forces." Is honourable really appropriate? We could go into a huge argument about the benefits of pacifism and being part of an army, but there's really no need for an adjective at all...except maybe 'successful', which is what was probably intended.
[edit] Page name
Through the article and talk page, 'National Service' is always title case, yet the article name isn't... going to fix! Mauls 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, not... this is (nominally) a general article. Going to fix the intro paragraph instead. Mauls 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beyond military
Just a heads-up that I will be adding a section on non-military community-building national service activities in Germany, Israel, Nigeria, Sweden and the United States soon. - Freechild 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
