Talk:Military

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Military history: Historiography / Technology / Weaponry

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from militarism was copied or moved into military with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from List of countries by Military Strength Index was copied or moved into military with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Lead improvement effort

I think this article's current lead section can be improved in many ways. I have attempted to do so and my good faith efforts can be seen in this revision. I do not quite agree with the rationale given by the user who reverted almost if not all the modifications I made. - Zaheen (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is totally ok for one general overview article that cover all militaries, and describe the most common aspects for them in clear and understandable way. This is not a blog and not a place for OR. Nubia86 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective. I certainly did not write a blog, nor did I engage in OR. It was intended to be a lead of this article with key points to be found eventually with details inside the article. It was supposed to give the reader a more accessible overview of the article. While the current lead is ok at best, it can be improved content-wise and language-wise in my opinion. Let's take my first paragraph, could you please tell me where it is OR or blog-like in this purely definitional paragraph that I wrote? I genuinely don't see it. --Zaheen (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current long-standing content (incl. the first paragraph) seems clear, understandable for readers, and concise for general overview article. Nubia86 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you mean to say that my modified first paragraph was not OR, nor a blog, but also not clear and not understandable for readers? How so? Which parts of the first paragraph are unclear or not understandable? --Zaheen (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]