Talk:Mercenary

message: The first part is about Egypt and the second about 20th Century?
What about european mercenaries in the Thirty Years' War for example?
There is more necessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.174.143 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This section would be much improved by removing all the various one-line references to anime shows and video games. In an effort to be bold I am culling some of these momentarily. If anyone objects please let me know. 
--User:Mylakovich
::Hear, hear, I fully agree with you. Dieter Simon 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However this is an article about mercanaries in real-life, not video games. 86.138.238.167 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section titled "Mercenaries in popular culture" is most definitely not about mercenaries in real life. 71.193.152.63 11:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A Wikipedia "popular culture" section longer than the rest of the article and stuffed full of the most inconsequential fanboy references?! Nope, never seen one of them around here before ;-) Fourohfour 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and "Mercenaries in popular culture" works fine for me as well. =) Kguirnela 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular culture" section full of trivia 

message: We need some links to actual mercenary websites, I used to know a couple that a got from talking to people on some gun forums, see if I can find some Highlandlord 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Shouldn't there be something about Hessians in this article? Or don't they count as mercenaries, as King George III was a kraut too? Tubezone 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hessians

message: Can I request someone to tell me how can we see earlier versions of this artical.
First someone deleted sources and references about Indian mercenaries from this artical.
Then after some days someboday deleted the complete section about India.
Now I would like to know how can I see the earlier different versions about this artical and report the misuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.113.37.9 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 October 2006  (UTC)
Click on the history tab. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somebody is deleting information and adding biased information in this artical

message: Does anyone have a reference for the statements regarding Machiavelli in the "15-16th Century" section of the article? I haven't been able to source an online copy of the work to search for references, and I'm not reading the entire book for it...! 86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machiavelli 

message: :"Under United States law (the "Neutrality Act"), an American citizen who participates in an armed conflict to which the United States is neutral may be subject to criminal penalties. (In actuality, the Neutrality Act only prohibits citizens from participating in conflicts, that the U.S. is involved in, on the side of states that the government has declared war against; also, it appears to have been repealed.)"
Does anyone know which of these two statements is true? Kyle Cronan 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed these two sentences on the Neutrality Act Kyle Cronan 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Information 

message: Lets please make wikipedia readable. The definition is rather wordy and hard to read. Can't we just say combatants motivated by profit who belong neither to the armed forces or local paramilitary groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brallan (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2007   (UTC)
:No because they may belong to the armed force or local paramilitary groups. The definition is in brief, please see Article 47 for the full definition. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: From the history of the article:
* 21:11, 6 May 2007 User:Walterego the removed section misinterpreted the Geneva Convention
What is the misinterpretation? 
   
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271:
:It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that; 
::[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.
--Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC
:What basis is there for asserting that every person must fall under the protection of either the Third GC or the Fourth GC? The Third GC carefully defines and limits the combatants that fall under its protection, therefore there are persons who are combatants that are not protected by the Third GC. However, the Fourth GC clearly states that its protections cover civilians. Combatants cannot be considered civilians, in fact a combatant is the opposite of a civilian. So Jean Pictet must be misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions when he states that all persons must be protected by either the Third or the Fourth GC. To state that there is no gap between the 3rd and 4th is to state that there are no combatants whatsoever who are excluded from the 3rd GC, and if that were so the 3rd GC would simply say "all combatants" instead of taking great pains to set limits on which combatants it protects, as it in fact does. So in an article about "mercenaries", who are by definition combatants, the Fourth GC cannot ever apply. 70.253.68.246 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly Jean Pictet's position gives his interpretation considerable stature, but he doesn't speak for the diplomats who originally negotiated and signed the Geneva Conventions, he represents the perspective of the International Red Cross, which as a humanitarian organization has an intrest in arguing that its authority be expanded to include all POWs, even sabotuers or spies, because to recognize that not all POWs are protected by the GC would undermine the Red Cross's authority to act on behalf of all POWs.Walterego 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider phrase used above, "...a civilian engages in combat", how can a civilian engage in combat? If one does then he becomes a combatant, and I believe the term "civilian" is generally understood to mean "noncombatant". Perhaps you are viewing civilian to mean someone who is not a member of a government's military, but this would mean that soldiers in a guerilla/insurgent army were civilians. I've never seen the term civilian used to describe the Viet Cong, or Mao's Red Army, or the Contras, or Sandinista rebels, or the Confederate rebels in the US Civil War. Like the IRA/UVF combatants, for example, it defies credulity to call them civilians. The British Govt chose to prosecute them under civilian law, but that was likely done for political reasons of not conveying any respect to the IRA/UVF causes (dismissing them as murderers), and it doesn't mean that they truly were civilians. Describing a civilian and a combatant as one and the same just doesn't make any sense, so describing a mercenary as a civilian doesn't either. Granted there are individuals who straddle the the line between violent criminal and combatant, like mad bombers, rioters, or pseudo-revolutionary cultists, but the line exists nonetheless. A combatant participates in a conflict/war/revolution/struggle/uprising, which has some kind of political/social objective. The closest thing to a "civilian who engages in combat" that I can think of in recent memory, is the Rwandan Hutu Interahamwe, and they are never described in accounts of the Rwandan Civil War as civilians, but always as militia.Walterego 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 1796 The effect of the denial of the status of combatant and prisoner of war in case of capture is to deprive the mercenary of the treatment of prisoner of war as laid down in the Third Convention, and to make him liable to criminal prosecution.  ... 1797 Deprived of the status of combatant and prisoner of war, a mercenary is a civilian who could fall under Article 5 of the fourth Convention...
If you disagree with the ICRC analysis then you will have to come up with a Verifiable reliable source that contradicts their analysis, before adding it to the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole issue is one that is more relevant to a wikipedia article about the Geneva Conventions. Since it seems self-evident to me that the ICRC analysis is incorrect, that one cannot be both a belligerent and a civilian, one is either one or the other, the simplest solution would be for the article to say that a mercenary is covered by GC IV "according to" or "in the opinion of" the International Red Cross rather than stating it as undeniable fact that unprivileged belligerents have the same status as civilians.Walterego 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No see Art 47.f  A mercenary is any person who: has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinterpretation of GCIV

message: I believe there should be a picture at the beginning of the article.
How about a photo of a big stack of cash with blood on it?  Can we ask Erik Prince if he can get us one of those? 151.197.252.96 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Shouldn't we include information about mercenary air forces?  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. --Agüeybaná 04:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any info on it.  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: yeah, fighter jets cost too much, and their pilots cost to much to train. it wouldn't be profitable. Rds865 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air force 

message: :Image:Blackwaterday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blackwaterday.jpg

message: maybe solider for hire would be a good short definition. Also, were conscripts that were hired out by their lord, mercenaries? Most all soldiers, that is professional combatants choose it as a career and therefore for profit. I think something should they should be describe as irregularly recruited which I believe is mentioned in the UN definition, but it should be more emphasized. Rds865 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solider for Hire 

message: The image :Image:Bob Denard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bob Denard.jpg

message: I have moved the following here because it is not sourced and there are many unsupported statements that are open to question:
*Lots of assumptions here and to justify it one would have to explain away laws such as the compulsory training with long bows that all yeomen in England were expected to do. The arguments about subsistence farming would have to explain away things like the export of wool to the continent that made large parts of eastern England wealthy. It was far from a subsistence economy as was the Flemish weaving industry etc.
* "Mercenary armies were the order of the day in the late Medieval era" During this period English and Scottish armies were in the majority manned by men and boys from those kingdoms.
*"until the upheavals which gave shape to modern Europe's political boundaries during the Napoleonic Wars". The boundaries of Europe were not decided during the Napoleonic Wars.   
*"gave rise to Nationalism" What about the Declaration of Arbroath "... for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule..." and Shakespeare's "This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, ... This other Eden, demi-paradise, ...this England. ..." Both about as nationalistic as one can get and made centuries before the Napoleonic Wars.
*"and the keeping a professional standing army"  The New Model Army was a standing professional army. As were most of the soldiers who fought for Britain in John Churchill's Allied armies.
* "The practice of using mercenary auxiliaries goes back to the early days of the Roman Republic," Why only back to the Romans? Greeks were used as mercenaries in Persia.
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From the lead: Mercenary armies were the order of the day

message: How come "soldier of fortune" is not mentioned in this article?
Is there a difference between a "mercenary" and a "soldier of fortune" ? Which one has more/less negative connotations ? Do they differ by their degree of "desire of private gain"?
Of course, I would prefer references (dictionaries, etc.) rather than personal opinions! Thanks. --André de StCoeur (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercenaries and soldiers of fortune 

message: I'm sure there must be many individual mercenaries who are actually morally superior to some, most, or even all current PMCs. Question: Has there ever been a documented case of 1 or more mercenaries in the employ of any entity that is even remotely leftist, humanitarian, or otherwise liberal? I remember many works of fiction (movies, TV shows, etc.) that portrayed a Western outlaw or villain in the employ of the Soviets or Red Chinese, but that of course is farce (a criminal "free-agent" in the employ of criminal totalitarian governments); though I wanted to "believe" when I was a child and teen, but now realize was probably a conservative's fantasy or else a cheap plot device/gimmick.  Why couldn't there be a "liberal" PMC, fighting to protect/defend the nearly powerless indigenous people against well-financed foreign force-initiators?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercenaries ''better'' than PMCs 

message: I always thought a Mercenary is whoever fights to get paid; all this nonsense about Blackwater being 'the real mercenaries' and American army being 'the real volunteers' doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Real volunteers don't go for the money, but it's obvious a lot - if not all - do. 
In fact, you see the 2nd meaning here http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=mercenary
"If you describe someone as mercenary, you are criticizing them because you think that they are only interested in the money that they can get from a particular person or situation."
Hence, even if you can't blanket all USA military as 'mercenary' you can certainly say a lot went there for the money.
In fact, even the 1st meaning[in that dictionary] is problematic.
"A mercenary is a soldier who is paid to fight by a country or group that they do not belong to."
In that sense, the 1st meaning of the dictionary, Blackwater are not mercenaries since they fight for their countries, at lest not necessarily.
In general the thing stinks propaganda; if you wanna pump your ego that USA has a 'real volunteer army' it doesn't mean it's also supported on fact. It is clear a lot go there clear for the money (or + glory), or to note it down, generally 'to survive financially', so you can't deny people have used 'mercenary' for that case specifically.
You can not dictate linguistics like a dictator.
I'm quite certain I grew up with "knowing" Mercenaries are whoever get paid to fight and they wouldn't fight if they didn't get paid, period. You can not change history of that. --Leladax (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the USA-centric view the only one presented in the article? 

message: The paper INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law by Nils Melzer, Legal adviser, ICRC, (© ICRC, May 2009) has a lot to say on what does and does not constitute direct participation in hostilities. Given its content I think we should rewrite the section. -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Private military companies (PMCs)

message: It seems to me that there is some form of biased Conflict of Interest in the 21st Century section.
Start Quote:
Al-Assad regime in Syria has recruit in 2011 many mercenaries from the lebanese shiite militia of Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to eliminate the people revolution against his corrupt sectarian regime
End Quote.
I am curious as to other's opinions.
--DJackD (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and Perhaps COI 

message: What is this? Wikipedia is now channeling The Onion? I think this term is ridiculous and ought to be removed asap. What do you think, folks? Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it under the provisions of WP:PROVEIT -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

text: OMG, Bazuz, that's a good catch! I am lol'ing at "military guest worker".--FeralOink (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military guest worker?! 

message: "So in 1941 the Roosevelt administration authorized the formation of three American Volunteer Groups, of which the 1st AVG was deployed to Burma and China and became famous as the Flying Tigers. The pilots earned $600–$750 basic pay per month, plus $500 for each Japanese aircraft confirmed destroyed in the air or on the ground.[80] The 2nd AVG, a bomber group, was recruited in November 1941 but aborted following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
I am pretty sure this brings a welcome redefinition of history. Just because legal loopholes got around congressional approval.. the executive branch authorized U.S. involvement against Japan, BEFORE the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I am pretty sure this deserves a mention in the Pearl Harbor page if it is not currently there. 71.102.17.212 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Volunteers in China During 1941 

message: When I filed my lawsuit with the COFC, I ended up getting many death threats from anonymous folks, I assume folks who were worried about losing their lucrative jobs as mercenaries working for the US Army in Iraq.  
It looks like they've brought their anger here, too.  
The section on US law wrongly says I had no impact on any of the Court's actions, when the truth is that nothing at all would have happened if I hadn't filed my suit.  
It also implies that I am not a "legitimate" contractor. 
Funny. 
The employment of mercs by the US government is illegal, as can be seen by what even the mercs editing and posting here have left standing. 
It's the big boyz like Blackwater and Triple Canopy that are the illegitimate contractors.  
Brian 174.24.22.29 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Law and protestor Brian Scott  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150812182322/http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm to http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727113053/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/brigade_of_gurkhas/gurkha_employment/tacos/index.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/gurkha_employment/tacos/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027165131/http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/singer.html to http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/singer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605134237/http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer20030601.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer20030601.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040914074551/http://www.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/africa/08/25/equatorial.mercenaries.reut/ to http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/08/25/equatorial.mercenaries.reut/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140408231757/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110303/wl_africa_afp/malilibyapoliticsviolencenigeralgeriaburkina_20110303124751 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110303/wl_africa_afp/malilibyapoliticsviolencenigeralgeriaburkina_20110303124751
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110829043950/http://english.blic.rs:80/News/7953/Libyan-rebels-captured-five-Serbs-believed-to-be-mercenaries to http://english.blic.rs/News/7953/Libyan-rebels-captured-five-Serbs-believed-to-be-mercenaries/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111030030900/http://ca.news.yahoo.com:80/african-mercenaries-helping-kadhafi-son-104838293.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/african-mercenaries-helping-kadhafi-son-104838293.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111031162521/http://www.freep.com:80/article/20111029/NEWS07/110290348 to http://www.freep.com/article/20111029/NEWS07/110290348
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151102180134/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/mercenaries/documents.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/mercenaries/documents.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mercenary. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001044446/http://www.humanite.fr/1999-05-04_International_Bob-Denard-chien-de-guerre to http://www.humanite.fr/1999-05-04_International_Bob-Denard-chien-de-guerre
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513141410/http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/WoolleyRev54.pdf to http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/WoolleyRev54.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526114626/http://www.minersnews.com/Dec09Jan10/AZMiner.html to http://www.minersnews.com/Dec09Jan10/AZMiner.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080114042126/http://old.exile.ru/2004-October-15/war_nerd.html to http://old.exile.ru/2004-October-15/war_nerd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228130758/http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf to http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Security contractor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Prisencolin (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security contractor listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercenary. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105235925/http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/singer.html to http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/singer.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015064536/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article33194.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article33194.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224080452/http://www.waronwant.org/corporatemercenaries to http://www.waronwant.org/corporatemercenaries
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107101054/http://securitycontracting.net/network/ to http://securitycontracting.net/network
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercenary. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.indiavision.com/news/article/international/243165/gaddafis-son-hires-mercenaries-to-flee/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124191956/http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/owainlawgoch to http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/owainlawgoch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508191016/http://www.pmcs-monitor.com/ to http://www.pmcs-monitor.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: TL;DR: this is a formal WP:BRD about my revert of this edit.
A couple of repeated attempts have been made to change lede's phrase  to specify  instead of .  I do not see this improving the statement.  
The meaning of regular army is widely understood -- it contrasts with militia or irregular military land forces.  The meaning of regular armed forces is not understood, as it cannot be contrasted with non-regular air or naval military forces, as such things aren't known to exist.  Civilians may acquire rifles, but not fighter jets or destroyers along with the bases, equipment and trained personnel needed to maintain and launch them.
By international convention, captured soldiers of an enemy's regular army have some specific rights.  The statement says captured mercenaries do not automatically get those same rights.  This statement is accurate and complete.  The fact that captured air force and naval personnel may also have the rights that mercenaries may not get is entirely incidental; inexpertly trying to add that to the statement achieves nothing but breaking links and adding confusion.
I have reverted this change, and will continue to do so if repeated, until and unless some consensus is achieved here.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  19:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change to armed forces before I read the above, but I still want it to stand at this time. My edit comment was " changed "regular army" to "armed forces", the term used in most accepted definition, and from what I can see in Google books the term used by the source". My main objection is that  regular army excludes militias, which can be part of a nation's armed forces and thus entitled to POW status if captured. Sjö (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD on "regular army" vs. "regular armed forces" 

message: Sellsword redirects here.  Yet 'sellsword' is mentioned NOWHERE on the page.  Do Wikipedians view that as a feature or a bug? Septimus.stevens (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sellsword 

message: "Hessians" served, and were paid, as members of their German units sent on official duty, rather than being hired as private individuals. Rodney Atwood notes that Hessians would have been considered auxiliaries.
Having tried to make something out of nothing, I am tempted to be bold and remove the entire paragraph because the Hessians were not mercenaries. However, I anticipate that some future editor, having knowledge of legend rather than fact, will think "the Hessians should be in this article". Therefore, I have left what is essentially a stub to meet the needs of uninformed readers. The link to the article about Haitian soldiers is sufficient for anyone wanting to know more. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "The link to the article about Haitian soldiers" How are the Hessians relevant to Haiti? I don't get it. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hessians" were not mercenaries 

message: The Wagner Group isn't mentioned here at all despite its highly notable activities in Ukraine, Libya, Mali, and elsewhere.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia