Talk:List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel/Archive 1

Sources

Can you please start putting official government sources rather than some outdated web sources --Mnh123 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to update the table with better sources. If you have trouble figuring out the syntax, drop me a message on my talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I have taken a crack at assessing this list. I recognise that a lot of hard work has been put in to the article, however, I have rated it as a start class article (please note Mil hist doesn't use C class) because I am a little concerned by the incomplete tag. I am not an expert on this subject, so cannot verify the data and as such, this combined with the fact that the list is considered incomplete, I don't feel that it can pass the B2 criteria. If you feel that this is a little harsh please do not hesitate to ask for a second opinion. This can be done by going to WP:MHA and adding it to the list there, with a short note beside it asking for a second opinion. Having said all of that, I feel that it should be acknowledged that it is a difficult subject to deal with (there would be constant fluctuations), but I feel that you have done it quite well, so please don't take the start class rating too personally. The ratings are rather arbitary and sometimes articles that are well done can fall through the cracks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that Iranian active troops are 945,000?

The source says Iranian active troops are 545,000. -- Mttll (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its more helpful for this list and the military equipment or it used to be list of countries by size of armed forces it was better that way with the flags to be put in order of size not alphabetic its better by size i believe so can it be replaced back to size in in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.0.153 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

order?

What exactly is the ordering of the list? the first few countries, up to malaysia seem to indicate it is ordered by number of active troops, but later on this is randomized? Taketa (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of these statistics are a joke. It says N Korea has a reserve force of 4,700 000. Russia has a reserve force of over 240 000 000...even S Korea has over 2 000 000.

But for Iran there is a reserve force of 350 000 people? (a country that had a volunteer army of over a million people (during Iran Iraq war and when the population was less then 20 000 000 people?)

N and S Korea have a much smaller population (S Korea 49 000 000 .. N Korea 29 000 000 ), how is it that they have greater reserve numbers? especially compared to a greater populated militaristic country such as Iran 24.80.105.24 (talk)Ditc —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

In response to Ditc, it may seem surprising but I don't thing the numbers are wrong... N. Korea is heavily militarized, and S. Korea is forced to be because of its neighbor to the north.

Anyway, we need to order this according to either total troop number or by troops per 1000 people. An alphabetical ordering makes it very difficult to make comparisons. And anyone who wants to find a particular country's numbers can simply use the find function to search for the country they're interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.21.167 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The table is sortable. Click on the column head and order it how you will. Rich Farmbrough, 09:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

It doesn't seem to work, the sorting. I enjoy eggs (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

UK

Where do the UK figures come from? Esp, the "Paramilitary"? Rich Farmbrough, 09:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

The paramilitary figure was made up. No such force exists. David (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There used to be paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, but as of 2007 they have 'move away from paramilitarism' https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/loyalist-paramilitary-groups.html BravoNovemberGolf (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

whats up with the stats for India?

1 active force? a million paralamiluitary? that cant be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.138.252.8 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) it says that we have 0 paramilatery'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a vandal edit that has long since been removed. Nohomers48 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

List order

Excuse me but shouldn't the countries be sorted by their number of troops rather than being in alphabetical order? At least it's how it's stated in the article.

The list as it is feels impratical for size study and comparison given the large number of itens it posseses.

Before I execute any edition I would like to know if the general public agrees because it would be impolite to just edit without previous warning.

December 31, 2009 15:28 PM Brasilia Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by REIZAUM (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, good idea Polylepsis (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do re-sort the list. As it stands, this is not "...by number of troops". I'd do it myself, but I don't know of a faster way of doing it than manually re-arranging it. Given the table template, I can only assume that's the slow way.

press the little arrow icons at the top of the column you want to order the table by... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobrah96 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

North Korea twice in the table

North Korea is presented twice, once as North Korea and second time as Peoples' Democratic Republic of Korea, surprisingly with somewhat different data too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.234.6 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) ^^ no it isn't! North Korea is a different country to Peoples' Democratic Republic of Korea (South Korea)^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobrah96 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces combined troop strength

The "Turkish armed forces" page says "1,054,750" troop strength, but here its around 500,000. I edited it a while ago, but its again changed to 514,000.

I checked the sources, both pages cite the same source which doesn't contain any number. For this page the 14th source, which amusingly cites CIA as source, says "reaching military age annually 1,298,978, active personel 514,000, paramilitary 148,700".

I live in Turkey, and Turkish Army is made of conscripts and its not voluntary (in other words you can *not* avoid conscription by paying money, working in any way, or writing a letter to someone/somewhere).

At present, Conscription in Turkey is 18 months, which means the sum of active and paramilitary personel must be somewhere around 1.5 times the number of reaching military age annually. Simple maths.

In 1998 (or 1999 cant remember exactly) a military official said there were 720,000 active personel in land forces at that time (defence and aerospace magazine). Considering Consription hasn't been changed, and Turkey's population has increased around 8 million, it should be at least more than 720,000. 514,000 active personel is simply wrong. Conscription is planned to be reduced to 12 months, but this reduction is due to be made.

Secondly, there is no actual reserve manpower in Turkey. Every man until age of 39 periodically reports to his military HQ, and if called to duty, must report to his base in 24 hours. Ages between 40 and 49 are considered reserves of the reserves.

Thirdly, if any source says "Turkey has x number of troops", it is unlikely to be true. Even TSK(Turkish Armed Forces) webside doesn't give numbers, becouse it changes in every 3 months. As I've said, best way to determine troop count is calculating it from "reaching military age annually" value.

I have written this, becouse before editing the page by myself again I would like to hear what people think. opinions? 78.161.46.91 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Friends of mine who live in the Netherlands and are Turkish are also called for duty. Are they included in these numbers? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkey has 514,000 active troops. Simple, deal with it. Plus turkey is a weak nation any way. So its 514,000 slave army. Rademire (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the Turkish armed forces is one of the most advanced in the Middle East with a lot of hardware and training supplied by NATO and the US. Simple, deal with it. Nohomers48 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is that for a reply? Weak nation? Take a chill pill :P 81.68.255.36 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Turkish troop numbers should be 1.5 of that number. Every term over 200.000 citizens are conscripted. This makes nearly a million in a year. Considerin the service time, it is mathematically impossible to come up with such low number. That source is not right. In the most recent term for college graduates (331. Kısa Dönem) there were 150.000 troopers. Just add up the number of non-college graduates. That would make 300.000 easily in one term. There are officers and 4 previous terms serving at the moment. That would make a lot more than 500.000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.75 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest release of General Chief Staff has been removed from tsk.tr but it can be found Turkish news sites, I have changed the numbers accordingly. Turkish military has 410418 personel and Gendarmerie has 180890 men force. I edited the article accordingly, and added the source, don't reverse it back!!! Temren (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

San Marino / Vatican City

what's up with them? Are they being protected by italian state? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking about Vatican City yes,they have a defense agreement with italy....they still have a police,though....obviously.Also,this is not really the right place to ask this.Also,you are supposed to post new topics on the top ,not on the bottomm of the discussion page.

Perhaps it's not the right place but the answers are given, thank you very much for that :) in all my time I've spent at wikipedia the only ones I saw posting at the top of the page were anonymous users. If one were to select 'new section' it would automatically post at the bottom of the page. Cheers 81.68.255.36 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Years

Does anyone know where I can find a list like this for other years, particularly the 1980's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.221.133 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There probably aren't any. Nohomers48 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Military figures

Guys, as a non-academic journalist this seems to me rather an illogical way of presenting this data. Which is the definitive figure? Call me a tech retread (which I'm not) but if I simply click 'total' am I getting a figure that reflects the number of bodies a nation can call upon? Or is that no. dependent on whether the other fields are active?

Appreciate any confirmation on this one... Us stupid people need any help we can get

Muito obrigado (thanks very much)

J Boyle jaylan.boyle@riotimesonline.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.65.22 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

China and North Korea Source.

The source for China and North Korea is not clear, and I believe the numbers are inaccurate. If this could be fixed, that would be good. --Djdpmd (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Seems like this page is being vandalized. I already changed one obvious one back, as I do not believe that "Iraq after the US nukes hit them" is a valid statistic. Also I think the US Armed Forces stat is incorrect as there are not 24 billion people in the Country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.229.1 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

I removed the second DPRK entry; the data looked fallacious and the reference had no information regarding troop numbers. As for the original DPRK entry, I can't read the MND pfd, but I provided a source for approximate active troops as of 2008. Any thoughts? --Ferbess (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That second entry was a vandal edit, as for the reference, that's an interesting one there, if only it was more up to date (as of 2010, not 2008). Nohomers48 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

Vietnam's active troops number almost 1,700,000 ? That would make it the world's second-largest military, can that be verified by additional sources ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The source in the article (Center for Strategic and International Studies, page 24) says 484,000 regulars and 3-4,000,000 reserves; my source ("The Military Balance 2010", International Institute for Strategic Studies, page 432) says ACTIVE 455,000 (Army 412,000 Navy 13,000 Air 30,000) Paramilitary 40,000 RESERVES 5,000,000. If you agree, I want to update (and correct) all the data in the table with the same source. --Enok (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you update the list with the latest IISS report, thanks. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! --Enok (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

United States and Russia

According to the 2010 annual report of International Institute of Strategic Studies, the United States (page 31) have these armed forces:

• ACTIVE 1,580,255 (Army 662,232; Navy 335,822; Air 334,342; US Marine Corps 204,261; US Coast Guard 43,598)
• CIVILIAN 11,035 (US Special Operations Command 3,376; US Coast Guard 7,659)
• RESERVE 864,547 (Army 447,203; Navy 109,222; Air 191,038; Marine Corps Reserve 109,600; US Coast Guard 7,484)

And the Russian Federation (page 222):

• ACTIVE 1,027,000 (Army 360,000; Airborne 35,000; Navy 142,000; Air 160,000; Strategic Deterrent Forces 80,000; Command and Support 250,000) Paramilitary 449,000
• RESERVE 20,000,000 (all arms). Some 2,000,000 with service within last 5 years; Reserve obligation to age 50.

It should not seem so strange, considering the conscription laws inherited from the Soviet Union still in use. --Enoch (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided a direct link the actual pages, just the people you are taking it from. Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More than this I can't do. It is covered by copyright. [1] --Enok (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion. Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Enok (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Russian army site and wikipedia page clearly give a different number, and it is a first hand account. Sopher99 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Same for the USA military and wikipedia page. Sopher99 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mention the site of the Russian armed forces, you should also provide links to it. For the rest:

Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

— Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

--Enok (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For example [2] Sopher99 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 12, 2008". Have you read it? --Enok (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I am pretty sure 600,000 people in the reserve force don't just suddenly die —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopher99 (talk • contribs)

Some mobilized, some dismissed. --Enok (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

only 50,000 new active, reserve is the reserve, not many are going to be dismissed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopher99 (talk • contribs)

This is what you say. International Institute of Strategic Studies says otherwise. --Enok (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You have also restored the NPOV template? You should read some guidelines from time to time. --Enok (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

THose 20 mil russian are POTENTIAL reservists, which means they are the estimated number of people FIT to serve in the reserve. [3] Sopher99 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That site is from the Russian Intelligence themselves. Sopher99 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an amateur site. I don't seem it very reliable, since I have the book in front and says the opposite.--Enok (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not an amateur site, and it is reliable, that book is from an independent think tank, therefore it is unreliable Sopher99 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I got bored. Bye. [4] --Enok (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. it is an excerpt from an article published by the strategic studies institute, the same one you use.

"This is an extraction of a no-copyrighted work, The reserve policies of nations: a comparative analysis, by Richard Weitz and published by the Strategic Studies Institute. You can read the full text in http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/." Sopher99 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing before I go. This is the "International Institute of Strategic Studies": http://www.iiss.org/ --Enok (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but that other page is an excerpt. Im sorry for all the conflict to it is nothing personal Sopher99 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For me is not really a personal matter. I am neither Russian, nor American. :-) --Enok (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedia note that the dispute was removed from the list of active disputes at the Third Opinion project by a disputant other than the disputant who listed it there. Was that by agreement? If not, the disputant who listed there should revert the removal or re-list the dispute. If it was by agreement, then kudos to both disputants for resolving their dispute. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I removed it as the conflict ceased Sopher99 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The conflict is not resolved. You have entered data that doesn't match the (reliable) source, without giving a source. I'm waiting for third Wikipedia, as this discussion between us does not lead anywhere.

--Enok (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Please note that the WP:3 process requires WP:GF and WP:CIVIL on the part of both disputants; unilateral actions, like improperly removing the request from the WP:3 queue, or continued edit-warring, may make it necessary to pursue other remedies per WP:DISPUTE. I have read your comments above, and will offer my opinion on this matter after further reviewing some of the relevant material.—Wikiscient (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• First, regarding reliability, WP:SOURCE has this:

Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)). All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves).

• That understood, IISS would seem off-hand perhaps slightly more reliable than reserveintelligence.com. Some of the other sources above seem sufficiently reliable, but are cited far too vaguely for the purposes of this discussion -- can either of you point more specifically to where they address this issue?
• We can probably trust the CIA ;) on this topic though, agreed? Their "World Factbook" has:

Manpower fit for military service:

males age 16-49: 20,746,777

females age 16-49: 27,174,148 (2010 est.)

"This entry gives the number of males and females falling in the military age range for a country (defined as being ages 16-49) and who are not otherwise disqualified for health reasons; accounts for the health situation in the country and provides a more realistic estimate of the actual number fit to serve."

There is no specific mention of Reserves per se, but that compares well with the IISS's 20,000,000 figure. (Which figure, btw, is in fact specifically mentioned by reserveintelligence.com: "According to The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Russia has 20 million potential reservists, of which some 2 million have served on active duty within the last 5 years.")

• Now, can we start by all agreeing to at least what I have just said so far? Wikiscient (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces

I agree that there are 20 million potential reservists for russia. Emphasis that it means there are 20 million russian currently able to join the reserve, not that there are 20,000,000. With in the last five years there were 2 million active duty troops that had the ability to join the reserve but didn't yet, the article says. The article itself was not only self published, but was an excerpt from' an article published by the strategic studies institute, a branch of the International institute for strategic studies.. And yes I would definitely trust the cia factbook over an independent think tank like the IISS. Sopher99 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says that 2 million have served on active duty within the last 5 years, but the total reserve personnel amounts to 20 million. However, the Strategic Studies Institute (US) is not a branch of International Institute for Strategic Studies (UK). The SSI has simply used IISS as a source, given its reliability. Also Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) uses it as a source (for example). --Enok (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No those 20 million are Potential, meaning people Available and fit to join. They have not joined yet. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the meaning of the military reserve. Instead the total Russian people (not only reservists) available for military service are over 47 million (see CIA Factbook). --Enok (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is your definition America then has 144 million reserves: males age 16-49: 73,145,586; females age 16-49: 71,880,788 (2010 est.) < from cia fact book Sopher99 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would allow you to post russia reserve number a 47 million if Americas is posted as 144 million. Sopher99 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Same format for the other nations. Sopher99 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you kidding? Russia does not have 47 million reservists, but "only" 20 million. --Enok (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those 20 million are Potential. They haven't joined yet. Sopher99 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The "potential" reserve (as you intend it) is 47 million people. --Enok (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The cia book and the excerpt published I gave both list it as Potential Reservists Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, what is the difference between "potential reservists" and "available for military service"? If the answer is "the firsts are in the reserve personnel", the discussion is closed. Otherwise, wait for the opinion of someone else. --Enok (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, those available are the potential, those 20 mil are fit to be such, but have not joined. Sopher99 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The military reserve does not join in peacetime. --Enok (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

US Armed Forces

Regarding the US Armed Force, I add some information from official websites in comparison to data provided by IISS.

US Army

• US Army website 2008 (2009 fiscal year - p. 1): Total strenght 1,112,703; Active 549,015; Guard/Reserve 358,391+205,297
• IISS 2010 (pp. 31-33): Total 1,109,435; Active 662,232; Reserve/Guard 447,203

US Navy

• US Navy website 2010 (expectation for the next fiscal year, ie today): Active 330,729; Reserve 102,923
• IISS 2010 (pp. 33-36): Active 335,822; Reserve 109,222

US Air Force

• USAF The Book 2010 (p. 48): Active 330,159; Guard/Reserve 68,872+94,753; Civilian personnel (not only reserves) 151,360
• IISS 2010 (pp. 38-40): Active 334,342; Guard/Reserve/Civilian Stand-by-Reserve 191,038

US Marine Corps

• USMC 2009 Almanac (pp. 6-7): Active 202,000; Reserve 105,348
• IISS 2010 (pp. 36-38): Active 204,261; Reserve 109,600

US Coast Guard

• USCG 2010 (2010 snapshot): Enlisted+Officers 42,389; Civilian 7,867; Reserve 6,946
• IISS 2010 (p. 38): Active 43,598; Civilian 7,659; Reserve 7,484

Most of them coincide almost perfectly, considering the different time of publication, and are totally different from the data of Sopher99. --Enok (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

• Again, according to WP:SOURCE no article should be based solely on "self-published expert" sources, even if other self-published expert sources cite them in turn, and no matter how well they may agree with more reliable sources. What we really are going to need here is a reliable source or two. NATO? The UN? The Russian armed forces themselves? CIA is fine as a reliable source as far as it goes, but the information we've retrieved from there so far does not really help to resolve this dispute.
• Can we find a reliable source that definitively states the actual number of Reservists as that term is rigorously defined by the Russian armed forces themselves?
• If not, we are just going to have to go with what we have, decide on the most informative interpretation, and make careful note in the article of what we mean by the number we eventually put in the article, and how we got it. Wikiscient (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What if I was to email Nato or the UN directly? Sopher99 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) A correspondent could give me the number and a link to an affirmative source. Sopher99 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikiscient. Are you talking about the Russian Armed Forces? Because about US Armed Forces I have found more than one from the official websites (see above). Unfortunately I don't know Russian language, and I'm forced to rely on secondary sources in this case. However, don't you think that would be better to edit this page with clearly reliable sources? Currently there are totally invented data... There will be time to become a featured article, accompanied by multiple sources. --Enok (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If I can email Nato or the UN, I can get attention from an expert in the subject, and affirmative sources. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly worth giving that a try, sopher! :) Wikiscient (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

• The question we need to answer first is this: what precisely is meant for the purpose of this article by the term Reserves?

The 20,000,000 figure seems to reflect the fact that the vast majority of Russians (only males?) do some term of military service in their lives and, thereafter, are liable to be conscripted into active service again should the need arise. That would be a different definition of "Reserve" than is used by, eg., the US. What we need is a number that can be compared with other countries by virtue of being defined in the same way for all countries. If different countries use widely different definitions of the term, then it is difficult to meaningfully rank or compare countries with each other, as we need to do for this list.

Can we agree at least on that, that we need to decide what definition is most "compare-able," and then proceed on those grounds? Wikiscient (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the case of comparison Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to find an email, but first I need a small break from all this dispute, Ill find an email if I can, in a few hours Sopher99 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

lets halt the dispute for the day. Sopher99 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikiscient. I personally exclude a solution of this kind, which seems an original research. The answer is simple (at least according to sources): the U.S. has 860,000 reservists, and the Russia, thanks to the reserve obligation, has 20 million. All the rest is our interpretation. --Enok (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those 20 mil are potential, and even if they did join they only once did when signed up as active. and are now ineligible for fighting. The definitions are different. As for the rest I will check with Nato/or the UN later. Sopher99 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military Balance does not include people not able to fight. Those 20 million are in the regular reserve, like the 860,000 Americans. --Enok (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It includes anyone of age. Sopher99 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It includes the regular reserve personnel to age 50. Here is another source: Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations: Europe, Gale Group (Google Books). --Enok (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We will see if the definitions are common ground. Ill also attempt to get an affirmative source from NATO/ or the UN. Sopher99 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the Russian armed forces, the NATO and the CIA have the same relevance of IISS (which - I would like to highlight - works closely with governments or military agencies, and its publications are used in academia). The UN should be fine. --Enok (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• My informal understanding of a "Military Reserve" is much as described in the article Military reserve force (which perhaps tellingly does not seem to discuss Russia): "A military reserve force is a military organization composed of citizens of a country who combine a military role or career with a civilian career." I believe it is most likely this understanding of Reserve that is reflected in most of the numbers for the countries in the list in this article to date. None of them has anywhere near 20,000,000 (ie. all males in Russia between 16 and 49). That figure is inconsistent with the other countries in the list, presumably none of whom are counting all of their male population as a "reserve force" as it is being proposed here be done for Russia alone.
• I am not proposing that we do WP:OR on the size of Russia's reserve force. I am proposing that we define what precisely the category is to be for each column in this table. We could define one column to be the category "number of citizens of a country who actively combine a civilian and a military career." Values in that column will then be the size of military "Reserves" for every country, it seems, except Russia. Russia's entry in that column would then either have to be left blank with a note indicating that data for that category is not available for Russia, or else we can find a reliable source for the size of Russia's military reserve force that corresponds to our definition of that term here (which seems likely to be around 2,000,000).
• But I have still not yet seen a reliable source saying how large Russia's military reserve force is according to the definition of that term at other articles at wikipedia and implicitly in this article as it stands now. Wikiscient (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found a UN contact, I will email now. Sopher99 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution. You may put the 20 mil russian reserve, however you should also place reference in the same box with * sign showing the ref as a note. The reference would tell how the 20 mil are mostly soilder past and present who are liable to serve russia once serving as an active duty. this would take both definition into account. Sopher99 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing it as 20 million while putting a reference directly next to it to that explanation I feel is the best compromise. Sopher99 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What do you think, Enok? Wikiscient (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: now read the rest) @Wikiscient. I have not checked the situation of all countries in the list, but in that case mean that Russia is the only one to use the "reserve obbligation to age 50". The question lies here: there are countries that include only volunteers in the reserves (such as Italy), whereas in others is compulsory for a number of years after one has completed the military service (5 in Israel, for example). In Russia, all those who have performed military service in their lives are in the reserves up to age 50. Why should we consider the reservists in a different way from the countries themselves? We should include in the reserve all the American people up to age 50, since it works so in Russia? Or maybe we should invent an approximate number, to balance the Russian reserves to other countries? This is original research. --Enok (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have explained that what I have proposed in this regard is not WP:OR (see above). I propose now though that we consider Sopher's suggestion to include the 20 mill in the list with a footnote explaining the discrepancy with the rest of the entries in the list. What do you think? Wikiscient (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what should be explained by a side note, since every country has its differences. Then we should put a note for each country: Israel 5 years after military service, Italy only volunteers, Russia up to age 50, Spain 2 years after national service, etc. The Russian reserve personnel is a regular force, like the others countries. --Enok (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That would not, perhaps, be such a bad idea. Russia is the country with the huge discrepancy though, which ought to be explained. The proposal now is to include the 20 mil for Russia in the table; it will then be up to other editors (starting with sopher, I would think) to offer concise and appropriate footnoted information about that figure. Can you agree with this proposal? Wikiscient (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, since the only difference from other countries are the numbers. There is nothing to explain, and this would give a wrong impression to the reader. --Enok (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: are you ok with having 20 mil as the number of reservists for Russia in this list? Wikiscient (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with 20 mil on the list only if there is a footnote next to it with an explanation. I agree it is 20 mil now once I fully understood. If I got confused, other can too. A foot note will help for those who think 20 million is a radical and crazy number, which many will. It is the civil thing to do especially since i conceded to the 20 mil view Sopher99 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I hope you understand, enok, that this is basically what you have wanted from the start. Can you simply concede having a footnote to explain the number to readers who might otherwise think that figure is in error due to its huge discrepancy with the other numbers in the list? I do not think it will be possible for you to get a better proposal than this. Wikiscient (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, there are more than one reliable source to support these data. Sophor did not provide any source, neither about the number of troops nor about the alleged differences of these reserves compared to other countries. --Enok (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No i provided source that said they were potential. But thats not the point right now. I assume you agree that a footnote should be put to avoid future conflicts with other editors as well as to avoid future misunderstandings with viewers? Sopher99 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you disagree I or wikiscient will still provide a footnote as there is a concensus between me and him/her that it will help the understandings of future readers, so they won't think 20 mil russian reserve is a mistake. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikiscient. Why should I concede something? We are not playing and there are no winners, we are writing an encyclopedia. It is quite misleading to insert a note only for the Russian reserves, just to please a discontent user. --Enok (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)This is not a very big concession, enok. If you concede this one small point, then we can all just continue editing again! Right? :) Wikiscient (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to concede anything. Add 20 mil russians, just provide a footnote Sopher99 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Many people who will see those numbers will believe it is a mistake or bias. providing a footnote will allow them to see 20 mil russians is true. Sopher99 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will provide a footnote wether you like it or not as it is not about accuracy, it is a necessary edit to help viewers. Sopher99 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

sopher... :| Wikiscient (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What? its just a harmless footnote for Godsake!!! it will ensure people believe that russia has a 20 mil reserve force!!!!!!!! Sopher99 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page every 2 minutes. There is the source to verify that is true. But if is really needed, write a warning bewteen html tags. <!--HERE--> --Enok (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what that statement means. Once you add the 20 mil russians ill add the footnote. Sopher99 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is not a question of concessions, Wikiscient. There is no reason to put a footnote, except to do a personal favor to a discontent user.--Enok (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal. We all take a 20 minute break at this point to think things through. Wikiscient (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote

Im actually done. ALl he needs to do is add the 20 mil russians, and ill add footnote, also whenever i click the source to ANY of the nations, it keeps sending me to the IISS homepage, not the page itself. another reason why footnote necessary. THe footnote will ensure people believe there is 20 mil russians instead of thinking it is a mistake or bias. Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are citations, references and sources in the right place to ensure verifiability. But as I said earlier, if necessary we can insert a note between HTML tags to prevent vandals. Without having to create misleading footnotes. --Enok (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that is exactly. Ill add the 20 mil russians, and Ill see what i can do about making the footnote more subtle/unnoticeable Sopher99 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @Enok:

• Everything at wikipedia ought to be reliably sourced. And that entails footnoting. If you do not footnote the 20 million with at least your think-tank reference, that number can be legitimately removed by anyone at any time. Agreed?
• All that is being asked here is to include with that footnote a note explaining how Russia calculates the size of it's reserve force. Providing that explanation is reasonable and will help quite a few casual readers understand why that figure is so much larger than every other country on the list. It does not have to be included, but it should be included per wp's main purpose as an encyclopedia.
• If some explanation is not given for this number, that is inevitably going to cause confusion and may well lead to further contention and unnecessary dispute. Best to just resolve it now to avoid future problems like this one.
• Some editor will come along eventually and add such an explanation anyway, I'm sure of it. There just is not really anything you can do about that.
• The footnote being proposed is not misleading in my view. Quite the contrary.

Now, are you willing to agree to this quite reasonable proposal at this time? Wikiscient (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no way to provide a footnote without messing up the total number calculation, as it reads a footnote as an additional unrecognized number. So i just added a note, not a footnote, which there is already 19 for other countries.Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed up that footnote for the Russian reserves (it's in the leftmost column in the Russian row). Nohomers48 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and also enok, is it ok if i delete the first few sections of our arguments, it takes up alot of room on the page. Sopher99 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikiscient

1. The reference is already in the article, near the name of the country. In other ways you can not do with the template {{Number of troops}}.
2. Why not do the same with other countries? Include the note only to Russia is misleading, as well as being POV.
3. Excluding this incredible dispute, usually just the presence of reliable sources closes the matter. Especially when a disputant does not provide any. :-/
4. If there is a valid reason to do so, is ok. But not to appease a discontent user, to prevent vandals, or for casual readers who do not know how to use the sources provided.
5. Not the note per se, but the presence of a note only for Russia.

I propose a compromise: we write a few lines in the lead section with a short overview of the armed forces in the world, including Russia and its reserves. In addition to resolving the dispute, we can also take advantage to improve the article with an appropriate introduction (as the Manual of Style (lead section) requires). Kill two birds with one stone. :-) --Enok (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I suppose that is a good idea, show me in your sandbox first Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Use your sandbox to make a outline, and we will agree or disagree with what you write in your sand box. Back in 30 mins by the way. Sopher99 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to sleep now. In my country are 3:00 AM. :-) Feel free to edit my sandbox, and the same goes for Wikiscient. Bye. --Enok (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ill do it tomorrow as well, and least we have a possible solution. =D Sopher99 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started to write something. --Enok (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

just saw what you did, exellelent job, just put a "the" to make The two Koreas. You may post it. =D Sopher99 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

also be sure in the edit summary to say that the paragraph was added out of consensus, so people won't delete it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done! --Enok (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent =D Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's really nonsense, being in the reserves and being eligible for conscription are two entirely different things, or shall we redefine what military personal are?

Pakistani Armed Forces

Discussion moved from User talk:Enok and User talk:Brainlara73 by Enok.

You are undoing my edits on Pakistani Armed Forces and List of countries by number of troops again and again. I have provided reference for my contribution which are not unreliable sources. If you see the last line of this page, you will find Sources: US Library of Congress; Central Intelligence Agency. More ever Daily Times also mentioned about reserve troops of Pakistani Military, though figures are not mentioned. Please be careful while reverting sourced material. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, your sources are unreliable or outdated. According to the 2010 annual report of International Institute for Strategic Studies (and not a provincial newspaper or an amateur website!) the Pakistani Armed Forces have 617,000 active personnel and 304,000 paramilitary into reserve personnel.--Enok (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have that seen the source. It does not say that Paramilitary forces are reserve forces. Paramilitary force is something else and reserve force is some thing else. What is the issue with you? Off course The Military Balance 2010 has not mentioned about reserve forces of Pakistan but it doesn't means that there no reserve force of Pakistan. This reserve force is mentioned at other reliable sources like 1 and 2.

If you look at The Military Balance 2010 again, you will find that Kosovo is not mentioned in it. It doesn't means that there is no force of Kosovo. For this purpose other reliable sources are provided in List of countries by number of troops. Similar is the case with reserve force of Pakistani Armed Forces. So now please stop undoing this again and again. thanks --Talha^{Discuss ©} 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On Military Balance 2010 (page 369) you can read that the paramilitary force is composed mainly by the National Guard, which is a reserve corps. But you're right, it is incorrect to compare it to the regular forces of other countries, and in fact are included in the paramilitary column. The Pakistani Armed Forces has no regular reserve personnel, but only personnel on active duty (7th in the world) or paramilitary. The situation in Kosovo has nothing to do with this. Pakistan is not an autonomous area or a limited recognition state, and the annual report of IISS did not leave out anything about its armed forces.

Regarding your sources, frankly I'm bored: globalfire.com is an amateur website (updated to 2009), and Daily Times is a little-known newspaper (plus it says nothing about reserves). Wikipedia is not your personal site where can write any lie you like. Stop your vandalism. --Enok (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism. And mind your language, that wasn't lie, reliable source was provided for it. Please read WP:IRS carefully.

i said that reliable newspaper mentioned about reserve force of Pakistan though figures are not mentioned. globalfire.com and defense.pk mentioned the figure. We have to consider all reliable source not just one as you are arguing to this point. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling those edits lies and vandalism was not helpful - please comment on the content and not the editor. Beyond that, I encourage both of you to continue discussing this issue rather than continuing the slow edit war. If you cannot reach a resolution, refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably is against principles of Wikipedia, but my intellectual honesty does not allow me to assume good faith on this occasion. I would be hypocritical. I do not think however that saying this is offending the person sitting behind the keyboard, but in any case will never happen again. I apologize if I was misunderstood. Regarding the dispute, I have nothing to add (and the same goes for Brainlara73, from what I understand). It only remains to determine which are the sources reliable and what not, but to do this we would need a third opinion. --Enok (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i did not said that The Military Balance 2010 is unreliable. It is also reliable source and other sources are also reliable, we have to consider all reliable sources, not the only one. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider your sources unreliable, and completely contrary to a reliable and updated source. So it's more clear, I think. --Enok (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: Though the parties are different, this appears to be the same dispute as was addressed by the Third Opinion given by Wikiscient earlier on this page. A second Third Opinion would be improper if there is no difference other than the parties. Can someone please explain how this Third Opinion request is different from the last one?

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Daily Times cite goes, it is a major newspaper, and I see no reason why it would not be considered a reliable source. Whether or not it is a sufficient cite for this assertion is an open question, but its reliability is not. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This Daily Times is a major newspaper?! It was founded in 2002 and, perhaps, there is only the web version. --Enok (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to its Wikipedia entry, and the List of newspapers in Pakistan, it's a real newspaper that is printed daily. That's also backed up by the publisher's financial statements. I don't see how its year of founding has any impact upon its reliability, nor would it be unreliable solely if it did not have a print edition. A Google search shows it to be widely cited by other news organizations. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's a national newspaper printed daily, then maybe we can consider it a reliable source. But that article covers a different topic, and the reservists are only vaguely mentioned in a sentence (without specifying which and how many). In contrast, the IISS report clearly explains every aspect of the armed forces in the world, including the number of divisions and the weapons used. About the military, who is more reliable between an editorial staff and a research institute of strategic studies?--Enok (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani Armed Forces have a reserve element of 541,000. It is cited here. Army - 528,000 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-reserves.htm Air Force - 8,000 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force.htm Navy - 5,000 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy-intro.htm 528,000 + 8,000 + 5,000 = 541,000 Mercenary2k (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Please do not edit the page while the discussion is ongoing.
2. Globalsecurity.com does not seem to me more reliable than International Institute for Strategic Studies.
3. Where is written that these data be updated?

Honestly I do not understand how you can ignore a report of an institution so important, and instead you do rely on any item found on the web.--Enok (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

However this site says (almost) the same things the report, specifically that the reserve personnel is a paramilitary force. Have you read it? The only difference is the number of troops, but perhaps the site is not updated to 2010.--Enok (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Global Security is a recognized website in Military circles. So data presented here is relevant. As for IISS, just because they forgot to list it or categorized in some other way doesn't mean the reserves just vanished. I am putting the numbers back. Deal with it. Mercenary2k (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit the page while the discussion is ongoing. I understand that for you is a personal matter (because you are Pakistani), but it would be wasted time for both.--Enok (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are Indian. I thought as much. Here is a citation from your beloved site which states Pakistani Reserve Forces. I am adding the numbers back.

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/india_pak_mb%5B1%5D.pdf Mercenary2k (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Rome, and that file is updated to 2002. --Enok (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So what not my fault if CSIS did not produce a comprehensive report. Pakistan had 543,000 Reserve Forces in 2002 and you mean to tell me that by 2010 they are all vanished? LOLZ...The onus is on you to find the numbers for the Pakistani Reserves. If this report omitted US forces are you going to say US has no Army, Navy and Air Force. Give me a break. I have provided you with two citations which state Pakistani Reserve Forces. The Numbers stays or find me a citation that Pakistan decided to disband their Reserve forces at a time they are fighting a war on their Western Provinces and growing tensions with India. Mercenary2k (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have difficulty reading, because I wrote more than once that the reserve personnel of Pakistan is a paramilitary force and is included in the paramilitary column. It is composed of: National Guard (which includes Janbaz Force; Mujahid Force; National Cadet Corps; Women Guards), Northern Light Infantry, Pakistan Rangers, Frontier Corps and Coast Guard (total 304,000). This may also confirmed by your compatriot Brainlara73, but if necessary I provide some scans of The Military Balance 2010 (despite is copyrighted). This is also written on GlobalSecurity.com [5]. --Enok (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have difficulty understanding, Pakistani Reserve Forces and Paramilitary are two different groups. The Reserves are for the Army, Navy and Air Force while Paramilitary is a completely different force all together as you poignantly state them above. Thank you for providing scans. I have already provided two citations which state Pakistani Reserve Forces. CSIS is not a bible and is open to discussion. And here is another citation of Pakistani Reserve Forces.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/Asia/PAKISTAN.html The Numbers stay. Mercenary2k (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple webpage with some numbers. When was the page updated? Who wrote it? What are his sources? Please read WP:IRS carefully.--Enok (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a simple webpage. It is the Center of Disease Control which is Part of the US Government. Case closed. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Case closed? That (simple and poor) page is updated to 2000, and the report of IISS is updated to 2010.--Enok (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because IISS doesn't report it doesn't mean it doesnt exist. I have provided you 3 reputable sites which state Pakistani Reserve Forces. IISS is not the be all and end all. Get that through your head. You clearly have an agenda. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have provided three sources: one updated to 2000, another to 2004, and the third that says the same things the IISS report (= reserve personnel of Pakistan is a paramilitary force).--Enok (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

LOLZ...This is what the 3rd link states:

There is an army reserve of 500,000 whose members have a triennial attendance obligation to the age of 45. Refresher training is as adequate as can be expected of a three week period, but reserve service seems popular. Paramilitary organizations, which were mainly of symbolic importance, included the 185,000-member National Guard, comprising the Janbaz Force -- locally recruited militia mainly charged with air defense -- and two programs similar to the United States Reserve Officers Training Corps, the National Cadet Corps and the Women Guard. The Women Guard, unlike the National Cadet Corps, included individuals trained in nursing, welfare, and clerical work. There were also some women in the Janbaz Force, and a very small number of women were recruited into the regular service in limited numbers to perform medical and educational work. The 180,000 strong National Guard would be useful in guarding vulnerable points. It consists of the Mujahid Force of 60,000, organized in battalions, some with light air defence capability, the Janbaz Force of 100,000, whose members are intended to serve close to their homes; and the National Cadet Corps in universities and colleges.

So how exactly are you arriving at the conclusion that the Reserves and the Paramilitary are the same unit?Mercenary2k (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On page dedicated to reserve, all the corps mentioned are paramilitaries. Just like in the IISS report.--Enok (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You logical deduction is laughable. The Page talks about Reserves and Paramilitaries but that does not mean they are one and the same. It clearly states that Pakistani Army Reserves are 500,000 and different Paramilitary groups have different sizes and even if you add up the Paramilitary numbers they don't come up to 500,000. The Reserves and Paramilitary are two different forces. Just give it up. You don't have a leg to stand on and are now clutching on straws. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In reply to: Reserves and the Paramilitary are the same or different?

See the definition of reserve force in book Pakistan: A Country Study By Peter R. Blood page 288. So now it is clear that Paramilitary is something else and reserve is something else. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion request of 15 September 2010

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I have recently given one on this page on what seems a similar issue. I have read the comments made in the preceding section, but have not yet looked carefully into the references being cited. It would perhaps help if the two editors most involved in the present dispute could very briefly state what appears to be the key point of disagreement at this point.—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Mercenary2k (talk) 02

50, 16 September 2010 (UTC): ....

The disagreement is this. Enok is stating that Pakistani Reserves are Zero because the report of CSIS for 2010 states them as such. CSIS is not a bible, or a be all and end all in this subject matter. I have stated 3 citations which state Pakistani Reserve Numbers and all are from reputable sites including CSIS which in 2002 Report stated Pakistani Reserve forces. CSIS also has a habit of not stating any numbers that they cannot fully verify. So just because they can't verify them doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If they cannot verify China or India's numbers that doesn't mean that suddenly India and China have no Armies.

I have stated 3 reputable websites which state the Pakistani Reserve Forces. They are: 1 - Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-reserves.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy-intro.htm) 2 - CSIS Report from 2002 (http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/india_pak_mb%5B1%5D.pdf) 3 - Center of Disease Control (http://www.cdi.org/issues/Asia/PAKISTAN.html)

Just because CSIS Report of 2010 could not verify Pakistani Reserve Forces doesn't mean that they have vanished. I have asked Enok to find me any reputable news source which states that Pakistan has decided to disband its Reserve Forces which would then give credence to the CSIS Report 2010 that Pakistan has no reserve forces and thus far he has failed to do so.

Pakistan does indeed have a Reserve Complement of 541,000 troops and stating them as Zero is disingenuous and misleading and goes against the ethnics of wikipedia.

(edit conflict) third time! Okay, thank you for stating your current position on this issue, Merc. Let's wait now for Enok to state his position before proceeding; in the meantime, I will try to further review the information and sources both of you have provided so far. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Enok

According to 2010 annual report of International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Pakistani Armed Forces has no regular reserve personnel, but only personnel on active duty (7th in the world) or paramilitary reservists (such as National Guard). Cfr. The Military Balance 2010, pp. 367 368 369, London: Routledge. ISBN 1857435575. All sources provided by Mercenary2k are out of date or unreliable.--Enok (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

According to CSIS 2010, there is no country called Kosovo so are we to believe that Kosovo does not exist. You are cherry picking facts. As I have stated to go from 543,000 Reserves to ZERO is a big news maker. Please find me any news source which states that Pakistan is dissolving its reserve forces. Just because CSIS 2010 didn't state it doesn't mean that it does not exist. If CSIS 2010 didn't state that US Reserve forces will you be arguing that US has no reserve forces. And by the way, where does in the scans you have presented does it explicitly state that Pakistani Reserves are Zero? Just because its not stated doesn't mean it does not exist. Mercenary2k (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Enok. It will take me some time to review this issue further. I suggest to both of you stepping back from this dispute a bit while I do that. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of these parties have been blocked for 24 hours for blatant edit warring - I count 15 reversions between them. At this point, a separation from the issue needs to be enforced.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds about right. I noticed the warnings on their talk pages after I'd started the 3O, then the page history, and it certainly seems to have gotten a bit over-heated on this page, too. Not to mention I could use the time to review all this!  :) Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Enok and Merc, it is unfortunate that you have been temporarily blocked for a short time. But you both seem experienced-enough Wikipedians to have known that was bound to happen. I look forward to hearing further from both of you after your blocks have expired, and I hope at that time we will all be able to discuss and reach consensus on this issue in a level-headed, civil, productive way. One or both of you may be required to compromise to some extent, but the way you have carried on this dispute so far is doing neither of you any good as editors right now, is it? Easy does it, people – we're all in this together, right? ;) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH

The first thing I would like to point out (and this has been pointed out already) is that right now this article seems to cite almost exclusively one single self-published source -- IISS. But WP:SOURCE very clearly states: "no article should be based primarily on such sources". So this article is in desperate need of being updated with a fuller range of reliable sources. Please see Secondary source#In humanities and history for a description of what would seem most desirable in this case.

• Proposal: we do not discuss rely exclusively on IISS any further in this dispute article. It is already relied upon almost exclusively in this article; the article would therefore be greatly improved at this point by finding other reliable sources to cite for it.

Can you in particular, Enok, understand why I am making that proposal and agree to it? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be provided with many reliable sources to meet the Wikipedia criteria of completeness, but this does not mean we insert data from outdated or unreliable sources (just to make up numbers). If we have other good sources, I would be the first to be happy, because I want to improve the article that I helped write. Just a clarification: IISS works closely with governments or military agencies, and its publications are used in academia. Jane's would be perfect, but you have to be subscribers. Do you know someone who can provide this data? --Enok (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Has anyone checked for info at Jane's? That might be a good reliable source of the kind we need more of here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Talha has just contributed this source above, which claims: 520,000 Active army; 300,000 reserves in 1994. No number is given for "Paramilitary" (though it seems implied they are being accounted for here in the "Active" number of 520K). We still need something more up-to-date and with clear numbers for Active, Reserve, and Paramilitary to really resolve this, I think. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• This book, The Armed Forces of Pakistan, might help some. It's from 2002, but it may discuss how exactly the Pakistani armed forces are organized into Active, Reserve, and Paramilitary. That might give us a better clue as to how to present the info in the IISS 2010 source, or how most accurately to combine info with it from other sources, because that one still seems most reliable and up-to-date even if it is still not clear exactly why they are reporting those figures in the way they are. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I have received this response when I asked about this issue at the Reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_September_25#Number_of_Pakistani_Armed_Forces_reserves. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources initially provided by Merc

• Global Security. Reliable, well-known source. It has:

–500,000 Army Reserves; 185,000 Paras (no date given)

–8,000 AF Reserves (as of 1994)

–5,000 Naval Reserves; 2,000 Paras (as of 1994)

That's 513,000 Reserves; 187,000 Paramilitary presumably all as of 1994

• CSIS: 513,000 Reserves; 288,000 Paramilitaries (attributed primarily to IISS 2001-2002 !)

• CDI: 513,000 Reserves; 288,000 Paramilitaries(no source cited; presumably same as CSIS = IISS 2002)

So far, these numbers all seem to be coming from out-of-date IISS data.

Can you find anything more recent, reliable, and independent of IISS, Merc? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And where did you get the 541,000 Reserves number you seem to want to put in the list, Merc? (Sorry for not reading back through all your comments above to find it -- can you just tell me specifically where that's coming from?) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

541,000 comes from 528,000 Army Reserves and 8,000 Air Force Reserves and 5,000 Naval Reserves. As for IISS, if they cannot verify information they leave it blank. So the last time they were able to verify Pakistani Reserves was in 2002 when they stated it was 513,000 Troops. So just because one source cannot verify Pakistani Reserves does not mean that they are ZERO. That is an absolute ridicilous line of reasoning. I am willing to compromise that we add 513,000 number for Pakistani Reserves but add a note besides that number that these numbers were last verified in 2002. Pakistan did not dissolve their Reserve forces, nor did they merge them with their Paramilitary forces. IISS was not able to verify the number and thats why they didn't publish it. Thats how they do it. Stating them as ZERO because one source is unable to verify is ridicilous. As I stated before, add 513,000 Reserve and put a note beside that these numbers are from 2002. How does that sound? Mercenary2k (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Source initially provided by Enok

See above. We need more sources than just that one, Enok. Aren't there any others you can think of that are as reliable and up-to-date as IISS 2010 seems to be on this issue? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• IISS 2010 has 617,000 "Active"; "up to" 304,000 Paramilitary; no mention of Reserves.

That would seem to be the most up-to-date authoritative information presented in this section so far.

→We need to find and cite independent confirmation (or else equally up-to-date authoritative refutation) of those numbers in this article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

About sources of Merc, I found a 2006 report of CSIS that does not mention the reserves (just like IISS 2010). Page 24.--Enok (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is because IISS was not able to confirm Pakistani Reserves. Just because they are unable to confirm does not make them ZERO. Or If a single source cannot confirm something that means that thing does not exist. That is a ridicilous line of reasoning. I am willing to concede that we add 513,000 as Reserve as that was the last time that IISS was able to confirm that number but add a note besides that number stating that these numbers are from 2002. Every other respectable Defence Organization as stated that Pakistani Reserves are 513,000 Men. Pakistan did not dissolve or merge their reserve forces. If they did, then find me any credible news source of this happening. I am willing to comprimise, are you ready to get off your high horse and do the same?Mercenary2k (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In both reports of IISS 2010 and CSIS 2006 is not written that are incomplete. The same error after 4 years?! Seriously, Pakistan has never had a regular reserve, but only paramilitaries of the National Guard and other militia. P.S. There is an official website of the Pakistani armed forces? Or the Ministry of Defence? --Enok (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not an error but the fact that IISS cannot verify the numbers. In 2002 they could and they published and in 2006 and 2010 they cannot. But that does not mean by any instance that Pakistani Reserves have vanished and number Zero. Pakistan does indeed have a reserve force. How are you so confident that it never had a Reserve Force when CSIS stated in 2002 that it did? There is an official site for the Pakistani Forces and I e-mailed them for information regarding the Reserve Forces. I even e-mailed Anthony Cordesman who authored the IISS Report for 2010 asking why he didn't publish the Pakistani Reserve figures. Just because IISS does not publish the Pakistani Reserve figures does not mean that they have vanished into thin air. I asked you previously to find me any credible news source that stated that Pakistan dismantled its Reserve forces. And you have failed to deliver.

Also if you look at the date stamp on the Global Security it states that the page was last modified at 03-07-2009. Which means that the Pakistani Reserve numbers are relevant as of 2009. You can go here and (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army.htm). Mercenary2k (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, that seems like a valid source to me, Merc. I do not think it is the best source for this, and I think when combined that way with the info from IISS (also validly sourced) it gives a most-likely misleading total number. So your addition of it to the article seems justified and acceptable, though I would like to recommend to both you and Enok that you avoid doing much editing of this article of any kind until this conflict has cooled down a little. I'm interested to hear what you hear back from Pakistan. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The web page is updated in 2009 (enough to correct a typo, or a simply backup), and not the data inside. Those numbers are updated at least to 2002. I reverted to last version.--Enok (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Enok, I'm sorry but that was a valid source. It is not ideal, but it is as valid for WPs purposes in general as yours. You may not remove it, especially in the context of an edit-war, without a much better reason than that. I am restoring it for now; please do not revert it against consensus again if you do not want to face further sanctions for edit-warring on this point. Please first find a better and more comprehensive up-to-date source than IISS if you want to change this data right now. Thank you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A more up-to-date source than Military Balance 2010 does not exist. I honestly do not understand how you can accept data of dubious origin, in contrast with recent reports of important institutions such as IISS and CSIS.--Enok (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been decided yet. That change may not stay; we may all reach consensus around a better alternative. For now: it is a validly sourced contribution. As stated, it does not seem to combine well with other equally validly sourced contributions. But let's let it stand for now. Let's wait to see what we hear from Pakistan itself. Have you tried to get access to Jane's at all, Enok? I even went to my local library's reference desk to ask about that: no luck. What about on your end, though...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WikiDao. I am even willing to concede that we add a note beside the Pakistani Reserve forces and state that this figure might be out of date. I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Stating the Pakistani Reserves as Zero was totally ridiculous. I have many relatives who are in the Pakistani Reserves. So I know first hand that Pakistan does indeed have Reserves. How does my proposal sound?Mercenary2k (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: There are a lot of numbers floating around here. Let's keep in mind that they are all just estimates: only Pakistan knows the exact number for sure (presumably -- and if so, they may not wish to share that with anyone else right now). Understand? No one is saying that the Pakistani Reserve forces just "disappeared". What happened to the published numbers of them, published numbers of Paramilitaries, and published numbers of Active duty troops does not seem at all clear right now. So let's find some more reliable sources, folks, and stop assuming that any of us are interested in doing that for any other reason except to improve WP. Okay? :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

sao tome and comoros

Both the small islands with militaries are not listed here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan

I am surprised to see that this has not been discussed before, but you should not be surprised to hear that Japan has no standing army, in accordance with Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. While there may be countries which call their militaries "self-defence forces" (e.g. the Israel Defense Forces), the Japan Self-Defense Forces are *not* a military. They should be counted under "paramilitary", if anything, and not under "active" or "total" troops. LordAmeth (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a special case. They may have no military per the constitution, but calling all those people in uniform "civilians" seems merely bureaucratic and cosmetic, whereas the source cited in the article (and the world factbook) presumably treats them as "active military forces" (do you have a scan of that page from IISS, Enok?) I'd support a footnote putting quotes around "military" for Japan's numbers, or even listing the Actives as Paramilitaries if my Lord insists. Once the page gets unblocked because the dispute above gets settled, of course. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

australia figure severly out of date

the aussie army has near 105 000 troops 60 000 active, 22 000 reserve, 20 000 standby reserves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

European Union Figures

It would be interesting to have all the troops in the European armies counted together as One and have it compared in the list. A European army would be defined by the countries of the European Union since the EU is the de facto and de jure democratically organized Europe, and since the EU 2009 Lisbon Treaty mentions the gradual creation of a European defence, which would fit perfectly snug among the other allied forces, all of whom adopted the NATO 2010 Lisbon Strategy. See the Wikipedia article "Military of the European Union", where the actual figures are referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I second the user above. The EU is now almost universally regarded as more than a confederation and less than a federation, so I agree these figures should be included. The rest of the individual EU member statistics can stay for now, but this shouldn't prevent the EU's inclusion. Figures would simply be a sum of all individual member state's figures. Giraldo1 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

US Armed Forces - Better source?

The current figures for the US Armed Forces (active) are off by approx. 100K, compared to their own figures per Sep 30 2010 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.40.142 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This would probably also be a better source for the reserve figures per April 2010 http://www.dmdc.osd.mil/Res_State.xls Playeren (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you count as "reserve"?

This is a concern for Poland - there is 0 as a reserve. But formally every male (and some female) citizens of Poland of age over 27 and apropirate health category (A,D) are marked as "army reserve". Category A during peace, category D during war.

If you count reserve as some kind of formation the information about Poland is not true too - there is National Reserve Forces formed in 2010 and they have more than 0 troops. They would be 10000 reservists at the end of 2010 and 20000 by the end of 2011 (source: http://www.profesjonalizacja.wp.mil.pl/pl/57.html)

89.72.48.112 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian reserve.

2.400.000 reserve. Where did the figure of 20.000.000?Sentinel R (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See above, there was a very, very long discussion about it: Talk:List of countries by number of_troops#United States and Russia. The source is the IISS Report 2010 on pages 222-232, and here is an image of the part of the report that states 20,000,000: [6]. You will have to speak to Enok for more of a background about this year's report. Nohomers48 (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Danish Paramilitary Forces

It says that Denmark has no paramilitary forces, which saddens me, because im in the Danish Home Guard, which should definetly be counted as a paramilitary force. It numbers 56.800 soldiers, as is both sited on it's own website www.hjv.dk and in the wikipedia article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Home_Guard), but i cant edit it, because I have a very new user :) (I in advance apologise for all my errors here, as i said, im very new to editing Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferguson420 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

China

In article about Chinese army there are number about 4,000,000 paramilitary personnel but in this list 660,000. What is correct fact?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The numbers used there were likely the result of some number increases by vandal editors most likely, but I have updated the stats on that page with the ones shown here. Nohomers48 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brynjubitr, 22 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please, change the number of Polish active forces from 71,900 to 99,778. This is the current amount at 31 january 2011 announced by Polish ministry of defence on the official site - http://www.wp.mil.pl/pl/strona/47/LG_54_55

Brynjubitr (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.126.187.211, 19 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The total troops per thouisand for China of 85.5 cannot be correct. The figure is more like 1.78 or thereabouts. China has over a billion people.

70.126.187.211 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That number is for Taiwan, not the People's Republic of China. Nohomers48 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Russia's 20 million Paramilitary troops?

Ok, I know there's been a large amount of debate about how to represent Russia's supposed 20 million reservists, but at the moment the table claims that Russia has 20 million Paramilitary personnel. This is clearly wrong. In Russia what could be termed Paramilitary troops are the Internal Troops (Russia), of which there are several hundred thousand. The way the table is currently laid out, it is claiming that Russia has 20 million active paramilitary police troops, again this is clearly totally wrong. If the 20 million figure must be included in the table (and frankly I don't think it should be) then they should at least be listed as Reserve troops, not paramilitary. I don't wish to simply move them over to the reservists myself, because that would wipe out the accurate figure that is there at the moment (and because I'm sure that would start an edit war). --Hibernian (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that the reserve and paramilitary numbers are mixed up, meaning that the 754,000 figure belongs in paramilitary and the 20 million number in reserves. Nohomers48 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the original (and in my opinion, sensible) figures were: 1,027,000 Active, 754,000 Reserve, 449,000 Paramilitary. Then people started adding in the 20 million number by just dumping it over one of the figures. In my opinion we should go back to those numbers and then have a note at the end saying that Russia has 20 million "potential reservists", or something. --Hibernian (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nohomers48, why do you persist in putting the 20 million figure back into the Paramilitary column when I've explained to you that it cannot be accurate? (If they're anything they're reservists, not paramilitary forces). Like I said before though, we really need to get rid of that figure and replace it with the above quoted numbers and then have a note at the end mentioning the 20 million. What do you say to that change? --Hibernian (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, go ahead with it. Nohomers48 11:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've done that now, sorry I didn't pay attention to this earlier, but I've been side-tracked with other things. --Hibernian (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical problem with list

The list refuses to sort ascending or descending. Please fix immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.189.183 (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. The sort function is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.51.20 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Still not working - I added templates to the article -ekozie [@gmail.com] (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorting is fixed. — Edokter (talk) — 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland is not a country

Somaliland is not a country, please delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 26oo (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are a country (by the definition of having a government, an armed force and controlling substantial amounts of territory), they just aren't a recognised country. There's a difference. --Hibernian (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request US active duty number

Please change US active duty number to 1,468,364. Source: DoD Human resource numbers per Sep. 30th 2011 - link: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms1.pdf Playeren (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nohomers48 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Monaco

This list includes countries like Haiti, Iceland, Mauritius, and Panama, but not Monaco which has two small military units totaling 255 men, which is larger than Iceland's 130 men. These are all counties that have no standing army, but have limited military abilities (Source List of countries without armed forces). This is why I added Monaco to the list. Sincerely 96.231.187.17 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although Iceland has a small force of paramilitary in the form of coast guard and perhaps the small SWAT team might also be counted as paramilitary as they carry automated weaponry. Iceland had USA troops stationed there for many years but a few years back they left and after that there've been no armed forces except in NATO exercises. It might be a misunderstanding regarding their Crisis Response Unit which wore uniforms and carried weapons for self defense but now they wear civilian clothes and have no weapons unless under special circumstances.Halkhaxx (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Halkhaxx

Australian paramilitary

the table originally claimed Australia has 60 million paramilitary troops, which is obviously incorrect. I've set it back to zero, but I don't know whether Australia has paramilitary or not. Can someone with more knowledge than me review this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTank99 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Note assignment for Singapore and Russia needs to be switched

Row for Singapore currently refers to "note o" - should be "note n". Row for Russia currently refers to "note n" - should be "note o". Playeren (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Nohomers48 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia's reserve of 20 million

The last edition of the article states that the Russian Federation posses over 20 million of Reserves, is this ok???? Or maybe someone confused Reserves with Men fit for service, because 20 million of reserves means that over 20 million people made the Military training?? Could this be real???--190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the correct numbers, as Russia still practices conscription, and once those conscripts have left the army they are still under obligation to join again if or when they are required, so the 20 million reserves in this case are those conscripts who left and are under that obligation. It's becoming a running gag people asking about that 20 million, maybe they should read this entire talk section before posting the question from now on.Nohomers48 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again, come on everyone can see that by the definitions of all other countries Russia simply does not have 20 million reservists. It may very well say that in the source, but on this issue the source is simply wrong. We should change it back to the actual accepted figure put out by the Russian military and just have the note at the end saying that it has 20 million "potential reserves" depending on how it's counted. --Hibernian (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is in conformity with WP:RS. Russia's definition of "reserves" is no different from that of Great Britain. Anyone who has served in the British armed forces are liable to be re-called for service until the age of 60-65. The only difference is Russia exercises conscription, therefore large proportions of the male population have served in the Russian armed forces and are liable to re-call. Russian military doctrine is based on mass mobilisation, this explains the rather large number of excess officers with commission and paper battalions in the Russian military. - If Russia ever came under any serious threat, then those paper battalions commanded by excess officers soon become very real as reserves are re-called for service. This deterrent has been essential in the past and is only effective because of the HUGE number of people the military can re-call. The IISS is not wrong and is one of the most authoritative sources out there. Talk^Woe90i 11:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The IISS is widely known as an authoritative source, and gives a figure of 20,000,000 reserves (largely ex-conscripts) of the Russian armed forces. We cannot pick and chose what bits we take from the source provided. No bias or POV please.Talk^Woe90i 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but anyway, I disagree with that assessment. That definition of reserve is not the same that is used by any other countries, if it were then the USA would also have many millions of such reservists (since there are millions of men under 65 who have served in the US military, and yes the US also has conscription in war-time). A real reserve military is one who's members actively train with the regular army on an ongoing basis (such as on weekends, etc.). In Switzerland most men are given an assault rifle and are required to attend military training with it on a regular schedule, Russia doesn't have that sort of system (as far as I'm aware), what Russia has is a pool of potential conscripts in times of war, that is simply not the same thing as a reserve army. The Russian Armed Forces do actually have a reserve force, but it is 754,000 men, that's the figure which should be used. --Hibernian (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to change it back to 754,000. If people want to have an additional column for "Potential Conscripts" then fine, but that is not the same thing as a Reserve military. --Hibernian (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

European Armies

According to the indivdual pages of the French,German & British Armies,Navy and Air Force's they number 247386, 126382 and 342410 respectivly. Have I missed something out? or is the info on this page or the others wrong thank you. (I don't edit on wikipedia just bringing this to the attention to those who do,sorry for my english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.136.145 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All the individual pages are correct, including this page as well. All the figures have an authoritative/reliable citation to support them. However, the citations on this article are a year older and calculate the figures differently from those on the individual German, French and British pages. Do not forget that the Germans operate 2 military support forces in addition tho their Navy, Air Force and Army, and the British Army Regular reserves are not part of the active military but are a reserve force. Going by the individual pages the French have about 250,000 personnel, the British have just under 230,000 personnel and the Germans 200,000 personnel in late 2011. I hope this answers your question?Talk^Woe90i 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan has more troops than Turkey

The proof given about Turkey's troops is highly inaccurate, it is just stated in a random news paper. Pakistan recently deployed more troops near the Afghan-Pak and Indian-Pak border, as well as the Chinese border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.34 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although everything you stated could be true, you are replacing a cited value with an uncited one. Please provide a citation for the number you are adding. If you need assistance in formatting the citation, just post a link to it here and I will be happy to help. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely wrong

Obviously, I'm not going to check all 200 or so countries but after a glance, I can see this list definitely is in need of a clean up. For starters the total size of the Russian military is 20+ million. Right, yeah, we can all agree that is wrong. Also total German forces are 400k+, impossible; they're not allowed to have more than 370k in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.131 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro

Who are those 10,100 paramilitary forces? I live in Montenegro and I never heard of them. This is almost certainly wrong. There is 8,000 police workers, but not all of them are armed. And I don't belive that police classifes as paramilitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.109.249 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

South Korea military composition as of December 2011

[[[South Korea]] in November 2010] Active Military : 650,000, Reserve Military : 3,200,000, Paramilitary : noneThe Official Site of the South Korean Ministry of Defence국방부 2010년판 국방백서 부록3 "남북 군사력 비교" 271쪽. 2010년 11월 기준

The Population of South Korea : 50,515,000[7]

While I would like to add in this data, the problem is that the website that you reference, appears to be suffering from an Internal Server Error, so I can't verify the data given (at least not at the moment). Is there possibly an alternate source with the same data that can be used for verification? Nohomers48 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Libya

Someone should note these numbers are Pre civil war -173.63.7.27 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nohomers48 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

United States - "Reserve" number is too high?

The list on our page shows completely different "reserve" numbers than the United States armed forces page:

	Our page	United States armed forces page
Active	1,458,219	1,458,697
Reserve	1,458,500	857,261

I'll try to reconcile these in the next couple of days unless somebody else beats me to it.

Nathant408 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone else has fixed this. Nathant408 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

South Ossetian separatists

South ossetia is not a country it is Russian backed separatist formations on Georgian Territory. delete it or i will contact administration. there is no place for South ossetia hamas hezbolah Karabagh Abkhazia and such things in List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. u can add an article list of armed rebels and formations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.210.231 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. South Ossetia is not a country, and hence should not be on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But nevertheless it's not the part of georgia, i include it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.213.184 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Per capita

Obviously the Russia figure is impossible, and many of the other figures appear to be out of date with current population estimates. Mr. Anon515 01:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Stats for Serbia

More than 2 million active soldiers for a nation of 7 million seems highly unlikely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.234.217 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

European Union

How about adding the European Union and the total (world) at the bottom of the list? I think it's important for lists to have a total and since the EU is more and more resembling a nation state (although for political reasons it's not referred to as such since the idea/reality is unpopular) as opposed to begin an organisation of sovereign and independent states it should be included as it has been on some other lists on Wikipedia. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan numbers weirdly off

The numbers for Sri Lanka are clearly off. The army alone has nearly 300,000 personnel (a figure quoted on the Sri Lanka Army page, and that was back in 2010 before they recruited more. The total given in the table itself does not even cover this amount. Add the numbers in the air force and navy in, and the figure of 259k given here just looks... weird. The 35k figure of reserve forces doesnt cover the numbers up either. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.47.11 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City

I see it stated above that Vatican City does not have a military. It may be true that Vatican City has no active formal standing army or may not be true, as the fact that Italy is responsible for the defence of the Vatican does not prevent the Vatican from having a ceremonal army or paramilitary force, but the Papal Guard clearly fits the definition of "armed units that are not considered part of a nation's formal military forces" (i.e., a paramilitary). If the Papal Guard cannot be described as a active military force, then including the Papal Guard as a paramilitary force seems the best fit since it is often described as an armed force (e.g. here, where it is described as "the de facto armed forces of Vatican City"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Pontifical Swiss Guard serves the Holy See, not Vatican City. B-watchmework (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican diplomatic service also serves the Holy See, not, de jure, Vatican City, but this does not mean that Vatican City lacks diplomatic representation. Many monarchies have regiments of guards that are included in the total of their armed forces in this list, and even some of the republics mentioned here have unofficial militias and foreign volunteers included in their total (e.g., Peru's Ronda Campesina, and the Palestinian Liberation Army brigades of the Syrian army) because they are, de facto, part of the armed forces of that country. I guess the question here is:

1) Is the Pontifical Swiss Guard an army of sorts? It clearly appears to be one, as it has a military structure, carries military-grade weapons, and has a long history of campaigning. Even if they are not to be considered an official army, this will only make them a paramilitary.

2) Is it the army of a state with diplomatic recognition? Both Vatican City and the Holy See are internationally recognised. De jure they serve the Holy See, de facto they are the army of Vatican City - either way they serve a state that "exercises sovereignty or has limited recognition", which is the definition that is used on this page.

Your point here does not bar them from being listed, it only raises questions about whether they are an active army or a paramilitary, and whether they should be included under the Holy See or under Vatican City. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You've made an interesting point, but according to this page, Vatican City has absolutely no military. The Holy See isn't a country, and as such, shouldn't be listed as one. B-watchmework (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit of a WAXy argument, particularly given that some of those countries are listed as not having armed forces but instead having paramilitary forces, which this page lumps in with the armed forces of a country and defines as "armed units that are not considered part of a nation's formal military forces". Whether the Holy See is a state or not is a matter of argument - it is listed as a "member state" of a number of organisations (eg., the UN), and it certainly fits the definition of "exercis[ing] sovereignty or ha[ving] limited recognition" used here, since it is recognised by other states - so are you saying the definition should change? Obviously we're not just following the de jure status of each country's armed forces decide whether they have armed forces, since Japan is included on this list.

Put simply, is the Pontifical Guard considered an "armed unit" that is "not considered part of" Vatican City's "formal military forces"? If so, surely it fits the definition of a paramilitary force? If a source is needed for the Pontifical Guard being Vatican City's de facto army, is the Daily Telegraph - a quality broadsheet - not good enough? FOARP (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In my account the Pontifical Swiss Guard are indeed a military unit, but like I said before, the Holy See isn't a country; simply put, its the governing body of the Roman Catholic Church. With that being said, read this to better understand why there are two lists. B-watchmework (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces numbers as of May 2012

Status	Air, Land and Naval Forces	Gendarmerie	Coast Guard	TOTAL
Generals and Admirals	327	33	2	362
(Other) Officers	33,544	5,474	592	39,610
NCOs	70,654	22,515	1,398	94,567
Specialized Gendarmerie	-	24,277	-	24,277
Specialized Petty Officers	34,528	8,110	606	43,244
Hired Soldiers and Petty Officers	533	-	-	533
NONCONSCRIPTS SUBTOTAL	139,583	60,409	2,598	202,590
Sub-lieutenants	5,190	661	15	5,866
Soldiers and Petty Officers	310,880	142,713	2,011	455,604
CONSCRIPTS SUBTOTAL	316,070	143,374	2,026	461,470
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBTOTAL	455,653	203,792	4,624	664,049
Civil Servants and Workers	49,018	3,723	885	53,626
TOTAL	504,671	207,506	5,509	717,686

Source: http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_4_tsk_haberler/2012/tsk_haberler_49.htm

Turkish Gendarmerie and the Coast Guard are definitely formally part of the Turkish Armed Forces, so they are not paramilitary as defined in this article. --Mttll (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In many countries, Gendarmerie is formaly under control of Ministry of Defense (training, equipment, budget), but works as policing force under control of Ministry of the Interior. That changes in the case of war. If that is the case in Turkey, then Turkish Gendarmerie could be considered as a kind of paramilitary. --N Jordan (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

paramilitary personnel included in total personnel

this article is very false. the (active) paramilitary personnel is included to the active personnel and than both are included in the total personnel number. this means that you count the paramilitary twice, which is false, because this people dont exist 2 times. you need a new category, too, because there is also a reserve paramilitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.34.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with some people?

This is supposed to be some kind of reference, not a competition in vandalism. Turkey with 6 millions, the Philippines with 2 millions... What is wrong with you people? --N Jordan (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.213.184 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Greece active personnel number

14,567? highly unlikely. the Military of Greece page shows a much more plausible number of 109,070

NATO

Would it be wrong to add NATO here? Only informatively and marked different than the actual coutries themselves. M11rtinb (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone can produce a figure for the total amount of troops NATO has, I wouldn't be opposed to including it in the list, but don't give it a number as it isn't a country. Place NATO where it would fall in the list and give it "-" instead of a number ranking. IJA (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant International Organisations

Whilst they're not countries, this is still useful relevant encyclopaedic information which would be of interest to our readers. I propose adding a new section to the bottom of the article to include figures for Organisations such as the EU, NATO, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ect. Obviously I wouldn't expect us to include organisations such as the Council of Europe or the World Health Organisation, they'd have to be relevant organisations to the article's subject. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur insofar that if it is an organization it is a chiefly military organization (i.e. NATO). However, as mentioned under "European Union Figures", I think the EU definitely needs to be included even if other EU member state remain on the list as well. The EU is regarded by political scientists now as more than a confederation and less than a federation--definitely more than an organization. --Giraldo1 15-1-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraldo1 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a list of countries, per title, not dependencies or organizations. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

US Paramilitary numbers

There is no source describing what constitutes the 14,000 paramilitaries in the united states section. I assume the CIA Special Activities Division, FBI Counterterrorism Division, [[Diplomatic Security Service], DEA Advisory and Support Teams, and the Border Patrol are unquestionably paramilitary organizations. The ultimate problem though is that there needs to be a precise definition used for this page, as one could concievably consider every federal officer under arms to be a paramilitary and thus this number would include the combined strength of all the Federal law enforcement agencies.XavierGreen (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It should. This needs to be changed. All federal officers should be considered paramilitary. Furthermore, the FBI CTD is not necessarily anymore of a PM group than DEA's intelligence division. It's all the same 1811 special agents with the same training simply assigned different tasks. Should include all 18 series federal officers, 1801, 1810s, 1811s and the DSS SAs as paramilitary, especiallly given the liberal interpreation of paramilitary for other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.50.107 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting idea

In the interest of Wikipedia's standards, how about we change the title of the article to List of IISS ranked countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel? With the exception of approx 7 or 8 countries, the article is almost exclusively sourced from the 2012 IISS edition anyway. So it would be yet easy to bring those 7 or 8 countries inline and source them from the IISS. As the IISS releases yearly publications, it is well within our means to update the article every now and then - I updated the article from the 2010 IISS edition to the 2012 edition last year.

List of IMF ranked countries by past and projected GDP (nominal) already adheres to this standard, sourcing the article from a single authoritative source. It significantly contributes to both the reduction of and tackling of vandalism. So it could benefit this article too, as I am sure you would agree.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sortable tables?

The list of largest armies MUST be sortable. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Just alphabetical is so 18th century. Somebody please fix it. I just realized it IS sortable... in Internet Explorer. But not in Firefox or Safari. Why? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Country Name

Can the names of some of the country's be changed please? It doesn't make since to have only a few countries with official names and the rest what they are commonly known as. I find it hard to search for a country that is using its official name. I'd rather have them as what they are commonly known as. I tried to change it but Congo and Congo Republic got all mixed up and couldn't figure out how to change the country template. TheChaserG (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

new stats for updating title

Hello please update the list with this official new stats. thank you

http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_4_tskdan_haberler/2015/tsk_haberler_60.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.240.84.201 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mindefensa.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/Mindefensa/Documentos/descargas/estudios%20sectoriales/info_estadistica/Logros_Sector_Defensa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017

American active military personal is 460,000 as of 2016. Please change this on the list. 123.231.109.35 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

The total military reserve force of Finland is at 900,000. 93.106.252.142 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

As per this recent article of March 2017, India has an active force of 1.4 million troops and US 1.3 million troops. This needs to be updated along with the link as cited as reference.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/22/us/is-americas-military-big-enough.html 123.231.121.2 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done From the template "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." ~ GB fan 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017

Based on most recent data, the active duty section of the russian military services number 1,013,000 NokSuk (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not what the original source ( https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/03/29/10600853.shtml ; see note at the bottom of your source) says, the original source also says that the numbers are being artificially inflated by calling the civilian riot police "soldiers"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

if you're refering to the national guard. no they are not 'riot police'. they provide MPs to the civilian authorities but they themselves are not police. they don't do police work. they're military and the russian goverment categorizes them as military. NokSuk (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In order to be able to inflate the numbers, yes. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

they're not inflating numbers. the national guard is part of the military services according to the russian goverment. always have been (predecessor). they are not counted as police, just like the guardsmen of sweden or the national guard of the US are not counted as police and are included in the military numbers. NokSuk (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Who do you think you're fooling? Both the Swedish and US National Guard are under the overall control of the Ministry of Defense while the Russian "National Guard" (i.e. the former Internal Ministry Troops), are a federal law enforcement agency, and not part of the Russian Armed Forces... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides, neither the Swedish National Guard nor the U.S. National Guard are included among their active duty forces, as you try to do with the Russian "National Guard"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Bangladesh army has 4000,000+ active personnel and 2,200,000+ reserve personnel 103.52.142.13 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

Radrafael12 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

Finnish reserves are not 230000 soldiers but 900000.

See e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32843558

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/11621512/Finland-tells-900000-reservists-their-roles-in-the-event-of-war.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-writes-to-900000-military-reservists-amid-heightened-tensions-with-russia-10268920.html

https://www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/80215-puolustusvoimien-kirje-900-000-suomalaiselle-tama-tulee-yllatyksena-monelle

http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000906423.html Olheimo (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Done — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

adding 500,000 reserve personnel to pakistan Abdulrafeh857 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)