Talk:Army

message: Removed IRA reference from the term Army in the description or title of a military or paramilitary organisation because:
A few definitions to back this up first:
Paramilitary
Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.
Terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now the opening statement to the article – “Army is also used in the title of military or paramilitary organizations which are not part of a country's official armed forces, such as the Irish Republican Army” suggested that the Irish republican army (hereby referred to as the IRA) were in some way a military organization tasked with the defense or military operations of the regions in which they operated (the British isles, mainly England and Northern Ireland)  
That is not the case however; the term paramilitary is better applied to a mercenary group, which is less personally or politically biased in conflict than the IRA were. Whilst the media frequently refers to the IRA as a paramilitary by definition they are not, this is a media and political rewording to make the group more publicly friendly in an attempt to speed up the peace process (the good Friday agreement) in that region.
The IRA are considered a terrorist organization who have on several occasions been proven to use violent force to instigate political and ideological change in the region against the will of the majority and democratic governing body of that region.
Also, note the dictionary definition of a paramilitary – it suggest that a paramilitary, also (a militia if you will) generally operate with regular forces in the region. The IRA did not work with either the Irish Army or the British Army, I am also unaware of the inner organization of the IRA but I am certain they were not organized in a standard military fashion but instead had a simple set up of a commander and a group of followers. I am unaware of the majority of the IRA ever having a structured rank system geared towards military organization, and any such organization was instead geared towards political control. 
A better example of paramilitary is ‘Executive Outcomes’ who operated in Africa in the 1990’s. Whilst it can be argued there is such a thing as a revolutionary paramilitary this article is not discussing that and so I have changed this article to express what the dictionary/ textbook definition of a paramilitary is more clearly to avoid ambiguity and the reader taking away the thought that the IRA were in some way a public military organisation which they were not.
:All very well, but the IRA still uses "Army" as part of its title and Executive Outcomes doesn't, so your edit doesn't actually make sense. -- Necrothesp 11:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed description of 'army' in reference to a paramilitary 

message: Why is Greenland under "no army"? It is covered by the Danish army, surely. 90.195.182.91 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This image is misleading. Greenland is not an independent state; it's an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, so its defense is handled by the Kingdom of Denmark. See Greenland and more specifically Military_of_Greenland. Scotland also is effectively autonomous, and it doesn't have its own military; should that be covered in green as well?
Unless there is a way to fix the image, it would be better for it to be removed.
Unless anyone can offer a solution, I will remove it in 24 hrs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.151.13 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No armed forces" 

message: Someone had made some ridiculous vandalism edits to the Sparta section (about ninjas, killing people by looking at them something repeated about "Maiurun". Corrected the vandalism manually, and removed some extraneous details (detailed descriptions of the tactics/gear of the Spartans that has no relevance to the general topic, and is covered in the Spartan Army article)Jbower47 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed vandalism in Sparta section 

message: *Oppose per WP:Commonname. The Army is the whole institution. Reading the article Field army you can also find the following (emphasize mine): "A Field Army, or Area Army, usually referred to simply as an Army, is a term used by many national military forces for a formation superior to a corps and beneath an army group. Flamarande (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind to explain the point of your quotation? The army is a military formation, ranked between a corps and an army group / front (however, as a rule of thumb, the main organisations are either brigade - corps - army group (NATO) or regiment - division - army - front (Warsaw Pact) - the main difference is that the regiment is a unit, while the equally-sized brigade is a formation). That's all the section you're quoting says to me - I'm a little confused what you're aiming at. --Dingo (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind at all. This article is about the Army as the institution, the arms, the military branch. A field army is a smaller organisation. E.g: The German army had several field armies during WWII. Perhaps we can compare this with the Navy. A national Navy can have several regional Naval fleets. Flamarande (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
* I see that even opposing participants in the Survey see it that "Army" may be a military formation as well as a service branch. I think before opposing it because of the minutes we should try to get common agreement here. I think that the examples as well as the arguments are in favour of the move Army (disambiguation) → Army; however, I see need for discussion where Army should be moved to.
:Ground forces branch seems to be a viable compromise IMHO; a "land army" is misleading because the military formation can also be called "land army" (contrary to the formation of the navy, the fleet, or the air armies eg. of Wehrmacht Luftwaffe). That's my €2,50 for that; what do you think? --Dingo (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Yes, we get the word Army from the French word, Armée. But somehow, we weren't entirely subjugated by the French. It usually happens that Continental countries gobble up French words to their full extent of meaning -- but Britain, and then America, don't. The Germans have the word Armee (no diacritical mark, notice) and use it the same as the French - for armed forces collectively. They reserve the native German word Heer (again, not Herr) for the land force. "Heer" was also found in Old English, of the Germanic language family -- but when Britain was subjugated by the Norman French, we ended up taking "army" as its complete replacement. Centuries later, we had to come up with the phrase "armed services" or "armed forces" for what the modern French word is used for. -- P.S. The Spanish word Armada does not mean Navy, but is another word for "armed forces" collectively again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.249.66 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: That (Peculiar and/or French) Word, "Army"

message: Just want to point out that China DOES NOT have conscription. Although its constitution says that conscription is what it may do, it has actually not conscripted a single soldier yet, since its huge population provides them with enough soldiers. So yes, conscription is legal in their constitution, but it has not actually been put in practise yet due to the fact that it already has enough soldiers. Conversely, I thought America's "Compulsory Military Service" would make it a country that employs conscription? It just seems as if some anti-Chinese pro-West person wrote this article. 203.213.40.129 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese 'conscription

message: Historically the largest art thefts have been conducted by armies.  Looted art should be included within the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art theft 

message: "In several countries, the army is officially called the Land Army to differentiate it from an air force called the Air Army, notably France. In such countries, the word "army" on its own retains its connotation of a land force in common usage."
: The word "army" doesn't mean anything in French. The word "armée" is what we're aiming it. Now, do we include all languages that have a word based on the Latin "armata"? In that case, German Armee now means "military" including the army (Heer), air force (Luftwaffe), and navy (Marine). And the word doesn't really have any connotations of "land force" anymore. Kolmiel (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "army" in other languages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Army. 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/20061116031246/http://www.fotw.net/flags/pk%5Eard.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/pk%5Eard.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) 09:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Law definition of Legal Entity:
A lawfull or legally standing association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual.
Has legal capacity to:
1)	enter into agreements or contracts
2)	assume obligations
3)	incur and pay debts
4)	sue and be sued in its own right
5)	to be accountable for illegal activities.
An army, is NOT a legal entity. Merely because some of the above 5 are true, or at times true, does not imply that an army is.
Ergo, an army is not a Legal entity. That an army could be a Licit entity is quite distinct, licit being defined as an organization of individuals having united for a common purpose and goal, and placed their own interests, agreements, obligations, etal, in this same.
That would make such an organization a legal entity, but for an army whom is drafted, forced, the mutual agreements are never there, therefore the legality is never there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.45.50 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly are your comments in reference to? Neither "legal" nor "entity" are used in the article. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal entity: 

message: "Призывной возраст" - 21 полных лет. 
После окончания "коллиджей". 
Воинское звание - "младший сержант". 
Объяснять - куда уже яснее-то !! 
176.59.209.237 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Армии идиоты не нужны ! 

message: ) ! 
PS! ))) 176.59.214.55 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot montiruet LAC ..  

message: The introduction already mentions army aviation, it could also include a mention of army watercraft in the same paragraph. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the introduction.  

message: B.B.V.S. (Phone no.+19-9128126096 2402:8100:3A0D:D7AB:0:0:E02C:EC29 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  B.B.V.S. (Phone no.+19-9128126096) 

message: Regiment consists of three battalions and it is the most important army unit because it is the lowest seft-reliant group. 85.216.185.153 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  REGIMENT is missing in the picture :(