Talk:Military branch

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Space force as domain specific

@Norschweden: In military parlance, military domains include land, sea, air, and space. By that definition, a space force is a domain specific military service, as are the army, navy, and air forces - all others are specialized outside domains. It seems extremely clear cut when seen in this lense. Garuda28 (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the current state of a space forces is barely in that domain. its just airforce+ in every case, which are again just two, and used to be one until december. also with the prominent position, it implies that it would be a major branch, which it isn't. Norschweden (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source to back up that assertion that space isn't its own distinct domain from air, land, and sea, since this is the only matter that determines domain specific from specialized? The issue is not about any one country's service branch, but rather domain specific service branches in general. It would be akin to saying that the Royal Air Force wasn't a domain specific service branch in 1917. Garuda28 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space is it's own domain but the space force, in it current state, does not operate there primarily. also we shouldn't highlight it just because it has it's own domain, since the more relevant branches should be highlighted, especially in the template, wehre no explanaition is given, why some are highlighted and some are notNorschweden (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that a space force does not operate satellites that operate in outer space? I'm slightly confused. You say space is its own domain, but that a space force does not operate in space? Military services are almost always organized along domain lines, with a number of states discussing standing up their own space forces (UK for instance) Garuda28 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, space is it own domain, but space force does not operate in space enough, satelites, are tech, not soldiers, and soldiers make a branche, not technology. also speaking of domain, cyberspace is the fifth domain, why isn't that listed up there, when something uncommon like spaceforce counts. Norschweden (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as it stands, we need sources for each domain. If we can't find any for space force, it should go. (Hohum ^@) 21:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norschweden: I neglected to initially include that, that is my bad. I think that makes sense. @Hohum: Here's a source for the military domains (https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1755520/multidomain-operations-rely-on-partnerships-to-succeed/). It states them as "cyber, space, air, ground and sea". Even though this is just from the U.S. I can find dozens of publications from all different countries and multinational organizations that state the same, so it is an international construct. Garuda28 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, also DoD, is (https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2077116/on-the-record-off-camera-press-conference-on-us-space-force/) "Just like the Air Force is focused on the air domain and the Army primarily on the ground, and Navy at sea and other places, we now have a service equivalent with those whose job is to prepare forces, to train men and women, provide capabilities that will ensure our freedom and action in the use of space across all domains." While, U.S., it applies to all other states. Garuda28 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that seems to say space is across all the other domains, not that it is one itself. Also, your assertion that it isn't a purely US definition is just your assertion - we need actual sources for this. (Hohum ^@) 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's referring to space effects across all domains. Please help me understand a little bit: I can provide individual sources saying that armies are focused on the land domain, navies focus on the maritime domain, air forces focus on the air domain, and that space forces focus on the space domain. Is this the kind of source you are looking for? Garuda28 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any reason to have space force up there, since the existing branches do not operate in the space domain, and on the other hand cyber force is not listed there. the whole split between domain specific and special, doesn't make sense imo. i would rather devide it in the common three brances, and special branches. Norschweden (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We’d need a source to say that they are "common" by the same virtue. I think we have sources linking each of these types of service branches to domains. I have a proposal, however. Let’s just merge the lists together into types of military branches and link to articles that discuss military branch types that have Wikipedia articles. I think that would be the most objective thing to do under this case. That includes both space force and cyber force. If other articles about types of military branches are created, then they can be added to the list as well. It removes the distinction between domain specific and specialized, which I think is the heart of this debate. Garuda28 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norschweden: I've made an edit at the navbox that I think gets to the essence of what I'm discussing. If there is no opposition, I'm going to make a series of bold edits here doing the same. Garuda28 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that's the most objective way and i'm fine with it Norschweden (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a skeleton right now, but I will be creating sections for each over the next few weeks.Garuda28 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air defence force

This article could include air defence forces among the types of branches. That is and has been the case in some countries. Specac (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of non-military branches

@104.247.236.159 You are adding non-military branches and have been reverted several times. Would you please provide a justification or citation for why some of these are military services? Thank you! Garuda28 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garuda28 the distinction may not be as clear-cut as you suggest, whatever the IP has been doing. In the Soviet Union, as demonstrated at https://www.ww2.dk/new/newindex.htm or Schofield and Schofield, "The Armed Forces of the Soviet Union" or IISS or Odom, "The Collapse of the Soviet Military," 1999, there were armed services both under MOD control (Ground Forces, Strategic Rocket Forces, Air Defence Forces, Air Forces, Navy) and others beyond (KGB Border Guards, MVD Internal Troops, possibly others). Just because border agencies are not under the control of the Ministry of Defence or DOD in the UK or United States, does not necessarily imply they are not military branches. Of course, to allow them to be listed in this or in any article on WP there needs to be good references for this, which I do not have immediately to hand - it's not my area of specialty. But the point remains. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case the IP was adding the Polish Border Guards as their example, which is not a military branch. If they can provide a sourced example of a boarder guards indisputably as a military branch, then we should have no issue in adding them. Garuda28 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the IP may not have provided a citation. But yes, I reviewed your edits before I made my post and I saw you were talking about the Polish Border Guards. Under the Soviet regime, it's quite possible they would have been considered a non-MOD armed service just like the Soviet Border Guards example above. The Country Study is easily available to check. Again, just because we write in English and because the United States and the United Kingdom are important English-speaking countries does not mean we need to impose US/UK views on everyone. That's what we have "Globalize" tags for. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Iraqi Security Forces and Militia (China)

Neither the Iraqi Security Forces or Militia (China) are military branches. The IP needs to show a source before continuing to add them. Garuda28 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]