This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Are there any campaigns to raise the age that you are allowed to join the armed forces? Personally, I think you shouldn't be allowed to go on active service in a war zone until you are 21 atleast. You can't drink in some states until 21, so why should you be allowed to murder 'the enemy' at 16? Ethoen 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To the above statement. Can I please make the point that we are talking about the 'British Army", not the US Army. Therefore, the mention of states is irrelevant. The discussion page is also to debate how the information on the page can be made as accurate as possible, not to discuss opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treben ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure theres a campaign somewhere by someone to raise the joining age, but its definitely not in the public eye. You cant drink in some US states until 21, I think here in the UK its 18 everywhere, and IIRC you aren't sent into a war zone until you are 18. The youngest British soldier killed in Iraq so far has been 18, so I guess that might be true. See here RHB 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He made the same offensive remakrs on the US army page, with the same bad info: You can't join the US army until 17 (with approval) or 18 (normally). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Am i being daft here? surely it's Lieutenant?

Correct, of course it's Lieutenant. Rob cowie 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The confusion no doubt arising because it's pronounced Leftenant in the UK (gotta love our archaic pronounciation) Gemnoire 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not archaic, it's the proper way to pronounce it! Traditional unionist 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the assertion about the reason for the lack of "Royal" in the name of the British Army? - Khendon

Have a look at this. charlieF 10:31 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear :-) The *current* assertion is based on the very URL you quote; I changed the article to reflect it shortly after I made the above Talk comment. - Khendon

I had always believed that the British Army had no 'Royal' prefix as it has fought against the King in the English civil war? SGoat 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a fallacy, although a very common one. There wasn't a standing army until Parliament created the New Model Army, so the army didn't have a chance to fight against the King, since it didn't actually exist at the time. Several of the regiments descended from the New Model Army do have the "Royal" prefix. Added to which, the Royal Navy did mostly fight for Parliament, and that kept its "Royal" prefix. -- Necrothesp 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the history section is supposed to be concise and directs to a main article, but giving the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean War less than two lines hardly seems proportionate considering their significance in the British Army's history. Also the Boer War doesn't even get a mention.

Is this section really necessary? It's incredibly subjective. All units are notable to those who served in them. The Black Watch, for instance, is actually no more or less notable than any other infantry regiment. It just happens to have been in the news recently. -- Necrothesp 21:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If you'd asked two years back, you'd probably still have got told the Black Watch... quite why is debatable, but there you go. "Famous" may be more appropriate than "notable", mind you. Shimgray 15:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • "Famous" is still a pretty subjective term. I suspect the Black Watch are known firstly because they have an unusual name and secondly because they're currently one of the few unamalgamated regiments. Why the RWF or the KRRC? They're no better known than any other regiment. I don't really think a list like this adds anything to the article, any more than the equally subjective list of Famous members of the British Army underneath it. It's basically just a list of people's favourite units or people. -- Necrothesp 18:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • Besides them being notable, something in the text should indicate (briefly) why they are notable, I've added a piece next to some of them. GraemeLeggett 12:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the lists under "See Also", which I think is more appropriate; and also taken out the "Notable", which isn't really necessary. -- Khendon 07:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Without the word "Notable", won't this grow to be a list of all British Army units past or present? There have been quite a few. Cjrother 16:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until it gets infeasibly big, and then hive it off to a "list" page -- Khendon 17:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I re-wrote much of the article, as the old version was difficult to read, and widely inconsistent. Main changes are: - expanded history section based on definitive eras - added templates and images - added table of current deployments - added table on current manpower/weaponary - new structure section - link to a History of the British Army article, which would be useful to create Astrotrain 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am working on various issues, please do not subst the template, I dont have time to explain all details, just leave it alone, thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 11:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Similar templates for the other services would also be useful. Astrotrain 20:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here with regard to the history of the English army rather than the British army. The Bill of Rights is English statute passed by the English Parliament and had no bearing in Scotland at that time. The English & Scottish Parliaments ceased to exist in 1707 and the new British parliament took control of the army in England and Scotland i.e. the British Army.

The picture showing the 'British army in the falklands' is actually of royal marines, who are not part of the british army!

I note no mention of the commonly held belief that its not called the Royal Army because there was one and it lost. Yearly renewal shows this is a Parliamentary Army! ;) Morwen - Talk 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across FV109 Workhorse today, an APC that seems only to exist as a vague comment here and on a lot of our mirrors. Paper sources don't mention it. Anyone have any ideas? Shimgray | talk | 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know if these designations should be "FVxxx" or "FV xxx"? We seem to be half one, half the other... Shimgray | talk | 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The United States Army recently changed the restrictions on tattoos to increase recruitment numbers. What are the restrictions for joining the British Army, are soliders allowed to have tattos? How about if they are on prescription drugs, one of my friends was told he couldn't join the US Army why he was still on ritalin for his ADHD, is it the same in the UK? Edward 10:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

British soldiers are not only allowed to have tattoos, there are few British soldiers who do not have tattoos (by the time they've been in a while anyway). The TV series Soldier Soldier actually employed a makeup artist just to apply tattoos to the actors every day! There have been rumbles about excessive tattoos from on high (there was once a proposal to ban tattoos, but it was ridiculed by everybody and never got anywhere), and tattooing above the collar would be out, but generally tattoos are standard in all the British Armed Forces (even Edward VII and George V got tattoos done when they were princes serving in the Royal Navy). What are the rules on tattoos in the US military then? Were there restrictions? Tattoos can be more of an issue in the British police, incidentally, particularly since many police officers are ex-military, but as long as they're not offensive and not above the collar they're tolerated. -- Necrothesp 16:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4859478.stm says: 'Soldiers can now have tattoos on their hands and back of the neck as long as they are not "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist," army officials say. Women recruits can also wear permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and lip makeup, although it must "not be trendy".' Edward 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the story, I assume that it wasn't that they now allow tattoos, but that they changed the rules to allow tattoos in more places than they use to... so they never had them banned per se. Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the equpiment section is a mess. It includes old equipment that is no longer in service, duplicates that are already described in the article on Modern Equipment and is missing some important stuff (NBC related equipment for example).

I propose that this page include only links to primary equipment such as the Challenger 2, the Warrior APC, the SA80, GPMG, LSW etc. and links to the Modern Equipment page and a Historic Equipment page.

It might also be worth displaying the equipment links in tables to reduce the length of the page. I've created an example here. The significant drawback with this is that maintaining tables is a good deal more difficult than maintaining lists.

Let me know what you think. Rob cowie 12:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer the tables layout to a list. Is it worth including Plce!PLCE in there, too? Also i think the MILAN and LAW, amd possibly mortars, want a mention. Though i'm not sure what to call the section they'd go in? -- Lordandmaker 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - an Anti-armour weapons section might be useful as well as a 'Personal Equipment' section to include PLCE, helmet, body armour etc. I can't do it now - only have intermittent net access but I'll get on it when I have broadband again. Rob cowie 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes to the equipment tables, however more work is needed. It seems to me that the simplest solution is to link it to the Modern Equipment page and work on ensuring that is up to date. Any thoughts?-- Mlongcake 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the rank of Private 4th class truly exist in the British Army? And I don't think that Warrant officer class 2 conductor is a different Italic textrankItalic text from Warrant officer class 2.

I'm not sure it does. I've certainly never heard it mentioned. Perhaps someone could look into it. Rob cowie 12:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never come accross it, nor seen it mentioned anywhere. Can't find mention of it anywhere except wikipedia. -- Lordandmaker 13:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Worth mentioning the plethora of titles given to (to start with, anyway) the private soldier; Rifleman, Kingsman, Ranger, Guardsman, Gunner, Trooper, Private, Gurkha and so on and so forth. And that's before the whole Household Division thing with Lance-Corporals of Horse, Lance Sergeants and Foot Guards Lance Corporals wearing 2 chevrons from the off. -- Thebigman 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Private 4th class doesnt exist. pay goes up in tandem with length service and/or promotion, so it is possible that one private could be paid more than another, but OR-1 and OR-2 are the same rank. I'm correcting this. Lots of Love, Tim

A Conductor is a specialisation, as I recall it was Royal Corps of Transport, now Royal Logistics Corps, alongside a Master Driver. I'm not sure that it's still extant though. ALR 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It still is, its the most senior WO1 rank in the British Army; there are apparently 17 (as of 2003) TheMongoose

It was actually formerly an appointment within the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. -- Necrothesp 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell have the enlisted rankings been replace with Thai army enlisted rankings? I smell a bit of vandilism here.

The rank of grade 4 Private (referred to as grades rather than classes) did exist before Pay 2000 was introduced. There used to be 4 grades of private with grade 4 for a soldier in training, grade 3 upon completion of Phase 2 training, grade 2 12 months after completing phase 2 and grade 1 a further 12 months after that and upon completing a grade 2-1 cadre. As stated, this has been completely replaced with a new system which has 7 grades for private and is based on a time served approach for your grades. Please note that these were only used for pay purposes and not as a form of rank (although in many units you would only be eligible for promotion to LCPL if you were a grade 1 private. This no longer exists under the new system.) See here for the latest breakdown in pay for ORs. [1] Vance2038 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many members of today's British Army were born in the Republic and Northern Ireland respectively? El Gringo 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Defence Analytical Services Agency has a set of statistics here, but they don't seem to contain this information. I'm not sure if it's held at all, but might be worth dropping the MOD an email under FOI and asking. Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this article there are at least four hundred Irish citizens in the British Army, but it doesn't give a source so it might just be an educated guess. As for soldiers from NI, that would be more difficult to answer. It would include the vast majority of the personnel of the Royal Irish Regiment, which at present has four regular battlions.

As an addition, the rank table is rather off. US ranks and UK ranks do not directly correlate, for example a sergeant in the British army is normally a platoon second in command rather than a section leader (a job that is held by a coporal in the UK). Additionally a company commander in the British army is normally a major rather than a captain, this does significantly alter what the ranks mean in practical terms. (Packrat, 21:02, 12th May, 2006)

The article attributes the taking of Bagram Airbase to the S.A.S., an army regiment. I understood it to have been taken by the S.B.S., a marine (and hence naval) unit, e.g. see Wikipedia articles on the S.B.S and Bagram. -- Countersubject 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy, and are not just 'considered' to be so. So why include one of their campaigns in an article on the British Army? That said, it might be a good idea to have a short paragraph on infantry units that are not part of the army (Royal Marines, SBS, RAF Regiment), with links to the appropriate articles. Countersubject 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bell 212 does serve with the Army in the army flight in Brunei. Who ever is deleting this should stop and look at the army website where the aircraft is listed. King Konger 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. We have 3. Gormenghastly 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no historian, but is it correct to refer to William and Mary as "usurping" the English throne? According to Wikipedia's William and Mary page, "they were called to the throne by Parliament, replacing James II, who was 'deemed to have fled' the country in the Glorious Revolution of 1688." To use the word "usurp" implies that they seized power without legal authority. Whether it was legal is admittedly debatable; but it was Parliament that put them there, and not William & Mary themselves. Haydn01 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent conflicts section is pretty garbled, the various headers don't seem to bear much resemblance to the content. I'll tweak with it a little but the following points apply:

• Gulf War - For starters this appears to refer to GRANBY, ie the liberation of Kuwait (leaving aside how we number the UKs involvement out there over time), that needs to be clear, it was only 15 years ago but thats ancient history to some readers who don't realise that TELIC was just the latest instalment. The section also doesn't really talk much about it, the majority is related to Options for Change and the corresponding force reduction, it needs to talk more about the Op in more detail as a summary of the corresponding article, and should probably link there.
• Balkans - I appreciate that the article is about the Army, but the RN and the RAF were deployed there as well, indeed as I recall the RN were first out there dealing with the refugee situation in the Adriatic.
• Afghanistan - At the moment most of this talks about the RM component not the Army contribution. Also wasn't the deployment as 16 Air Assault rather than 1 Para as Spearhead Battalion? If it was a spearhead deployment then that should be mentioned, plus the follow on force.
• Iraq (current) - The section shouldn't really discuss the political issues associated with the legality of the intervention, that's discussed at length elsewhere, and could be linked to as appropriate. Also isn't the UK actually Commander MND(SW) rather than just the majority presence? Surely this should be mentioned.
• Sierra Leone - The section talks mainly about the SAS! This section should discuss Op PALLISER which was initially a Spearhead intervention with one of the Para Battalions, I can't remember which one. There was also an Amphibious Task Group involved. The SF activity was just one small part of the whole operation.
• NI - The section lacks focus or effectiveness as a summary of the situation. ALR 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was 1 PARA in Op Palliser. - Lordandmaker 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's Commander MND(SE) not MND(SW) - that was based in Banja Luka! Mind you, I make the same mistake from time to time - heartily sick of both HQs! Gormenghastly 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone be able to adjust the formatting so that the pictures in the "flags and ensigns" section do not overlap the table below? I would do it myself but I am too stupid to work out how :) 130.246.132.26 15:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ( alihaig))

Done Rob cowie 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"The British Government's attempt to mollify the Natives by delineating the Appalachians as the westward limit for European settlement was the primary motivator of the American colonies in launching the secessionist American War of Independence."

...This is not what they teach us in the States. An attribution would be appropriate.

It's an overstatement. It would be fairer to say that the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, was one of the causes of the revolution, along with others like 'no taxation without representation', and concerns about slave property rights. It's no coincidence that the American Indians tended to side with the British or remain neutral. Countersubject 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the BV206 has been added to Equipment section. I didn't know the army had this vehicle. The Royal Marines have recently deployed a variant, the Viking (BVS10). Does anyone know if the army has the 206 or one of its variants? Countersubject 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Countersubject 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Army doesn't have any at present, but will operate a variant from about 2010 as transport for the Watchkeeper UAV. See:

• Announcement of contract in the House of Commons, Hansard column 86WS, 20 Jul 2005
• Announcement of BAE Hägglund order and intent

At some point, it should probably be put back into the eqiupment section with appropriate caveat. Rob cowie 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the British Army has its roots in the armies of England and Scotland. It would be good to have something on Irish and Welsh regiments, especially since up to 1801 Ireland was a seperate Kingdom. Countersubject 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"From the late 18th to the mid 20th centuries, the United Kingdom was one of the major military and economic powers of the world. "

Britain emerged from the War of the Spanish Succession as the leading military power in Europe. That was at the beginning of the 18th century. During the Nine Years War at the end of the 17th century it already had the most powerful navy in the world.

Secondly, the UK is still a major military power. It is a nuclear power and is a permanent member of the UN security Council.

Thirdly, currently, at the beginning of the 21st century, the UK's is the 4/5th most powerful economy in the world.

I think some clarification is required. Raymond Palmer 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in several articels about different units you can see a Tactical Recognition Flash, but there is no article about what it mean or what it is good for. would be nice to read something about it. cu AssetBurned 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"What it is good for" - Recognising units, tactically ;) TheMongoose

• Excellent. Gormenghastly 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why this article just talk about the military victories of UK and not their losses.

Surely the Troop numbers in Iraq need amending- they are currently around 5000 and due to fall to 3500 at the end of this year. Rob 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Territorial Army soldiers are known as Terriers or "weekend warriors", STABS or the SAS (saturdays and sundays).

I've removed the above statement as it is inaccurate and more than a little insulting. Territorial Soldiers go by the same nicknames as their Regular conterparts. The only exception is to sometimes label them as "Territorials" and Regular soldiers as "Regulars" (strange that) when differentiating the two. "Terriers" is an historical nickname and hasn't been used for years. However, the nicknames do exist, but are used in an insulting context. Perhaps the place to put them would be in an Army Insults section including other phrases such as ARAB, REMF, Them, Biff, etc. Or perhaps not.

Vance2038 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard new APCs were being bought from the Americans called 'Mastiffs'. Could someone who can edit well research and correct, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this. I don't think its of much use on this particular page. On historical reenactment perhaps. For this page, a bunch of chaps dressed up in colonial era uniforms next to a a couple of people in modern dress just looks silly. Jooler 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At least they are real people, I saw exactly zero illustrations on this page concerning the British Army in North America, that's what I get for trying to help. IvoShandor 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Real people who are not in the British Army. Jooler 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well when you get a photograph of real people in the British Army from the early 19th century, let me know. I don't care what you do, I am not vested in the article or the picture. IvoShandor 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to go through this article with a fine tooth comb. For the record, it is at an OK standard, but contains very few reliable references, hence the addition of :refimprove by me. In addition, it needs some more work on its grammar and spelling. I would appreciate it if this didn't become a revert war - as so many military themed articles do on WP - assume good faith at all times. Gormenghastly 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks! Jhfireboy is leading the work on the British Army Portal, which I think is extremely worthwhile stuff. I will be canvassing offsite to round up some more serving soldiers to assist, and if you need to ask where I'm coordinating that then you shouldn't be editing this page!  :)

If anyone is genuinely interested in helping out with this, could they please let Jhfireboy know and we can start working towards FA and all those good things! Cheers! Gormenghastly 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the 2015 figures really the most recent ones for the strength of the British Army? JezGrove ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The infobox note says they are 2017 figures. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I was looking at the table in the 'Personnel' section, which gives the 2015 figures. Best wishes, JezGrove ( talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The figures in the table are only updated every 5 years, so are currently a little out of date. However, in the first paragraph of the Personnel section the text states the actual figures from Jan 2018 with source. Best Regards Stingray Trainer ( talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently the infobox says "891,712,768". Somehow I don't think that's right... Mr Larrington ( talk) 23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 00:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Mr Larrington: Why go to the effort to post here instead just reverting obvious vandalism? - wolf 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are there no figures in the British Army strength table for the interwar years? Spinning Spark 16:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The topic is covered in the related article History of the British Army. Perhaps something can be done to improve the linking. Mediatech492 ( talk) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why the figures are not in this article. It's a very prominent omission from the table. Is there some reason it was left out. As for History of the British Army, I'm not seeing the figures there either. Spinning Spark 19:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Then put it there. Mediatech492 ( talk) 22:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I would if I actually had the figures. Why do you think I'm asking the question? That's what I came to this article for. Spinning Spark 23:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And you got your answer. It's not my fault, or Wikipedia's fault, that you don't like the answer. Mediatech492 ( talk) 01:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Haughton served from March to 2015 to October 2018 as per his article. He has moved on or up to the post of Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chiefs of Staff Committee. So therefore, specifying him as Army Sergeant Major is incorrect/misleading. There is a new Army Sergeant Major, Gavin Paton. There is no news release yet, but the article Army Sergeant Major specifies a source via the British Army's official twitter account. Twitteris not a verifiable source but the source is there in the entry. So reverting to say Haughton is Army Sergeant Major is still wrong.

Sammartinlai ( talk) 10:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started an article on Paton. Please feel free to expand. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

And I thank you. Sammartinlai ( talk) 10:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Dormskirk and Sammartinlai: - When Dormskirk reverted the initial edit adding Paton, with the summary; "unsourced", he was correct, because it was unsourced. Then Sammartinlai reverted, summary; "Actually yes it is [+link]", that was incorrect in a couple ways. No, it actually wasn't when Dormskirk reverted, so to say "it was sourced" was untrue. It would have been more accurate (and collegial) to say, "here, I'm adding a source now". Which also means that it should have been changed as a straight edit, not a revert. But more importantly; we do not add refs to edit summaries. That is essentially leaving the source out and the content unsourced. Readers don't go searching through page histories to find sources, nor should they have to. That is why I reverted Sammartinlai.

Now, with that said, I have to ask; as of right now, is there a reliable source that either states Paton is the new ASM? Or at least one that says Haughton isn't ASM anymore? Because without one of those, we can't change that entry. It's one of those Wiki-things where you know something is one way, but you have to leave it as the other until we have a reliable source to support it. (and that includes changing sources content to "TBD" until a source can be found). That just how it goes. (Dormskirk, I know you know this). So... do we have a source? - wolf 11:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

clearly you haven't checked. No thank you for all you essays. Goodday. Sammartinlai ( talk) 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually I did check, and that is why I asked both you and Dormskirk if you had any other refs to support Paton's appt to ASM. On his BLP stub, there is currently only a single "source" to support this info, that being the twittr post you first tried to bury in an edit summary. Then just above, about that same post. you wrote; "There is no news release yet" followed by; "Twitter is not a verifiable source". So it seems, by your own words, that the only support for this info is a single, "non-verifiable" tweet. This is why I asked if there were any other sources. I don't think that is unreasonable. But I do think your persistent, hostile attitude is unreasonable. I made you a peace offering in an attempt to start cooperating, which you have clearly rejected. If you want to continue to disrupt talk pages and articles with your WP:DICK-ish behavior, that is on you. Have a nice day - wolf 14:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What more references can there be now? https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/our-people/senior-leaders/army-sergeant-major/ BlueD954 ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

as the commanders in the info-box. That's lovely. But there's now also Deputy Chief of the General Staff. Should he now also be added? Thoughts? @Dormskirk ?

Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In my view, there is a risk of cluttering the infobox. Dormskirk ( talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok so the list shouldn't change. Thanks. Sammartinlai ( talk) 11:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4iQ1Rgz850

If people think it is a reliable source (Good Morning Britain is a news series by ITV). Then you have as much answer as you want who is the next Army Sergeant Major and it cannot and must not be still Glenn Haughton.

Sammartinlai ( talk) 13:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Sammartinlai: You are re-hashing an old issue. No one is trying to re-add Houghton as ASM. Another editor confirmed the twittr post as RS (despite your comments to the contrary), so this is all old news now. Let it go already... - wolf 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

And you are a ( Personal attack removed) who started it. It was not a re-hash. Sammartinlai ( talk) 03:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You posted here first, not me, on a page you know is on my watchlist, about an issue resolved days ago. You could've simply added the source, but there was no reason for this post, or the WP:NPA needless reply. You need to stop disrupting talk pages with this bizarre and hostile behaviour. - wolf 08:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead section cites the Bill of Rights as the reason British Army is not called the Royal Army. However, as the Bill of Rights only stated that "[b]y raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law", this assertion is not supported by its source. I move to mark this statement with {{ failed verification}} so other editors can supply sources or remove this statement.- Mys_721tx ( talk) 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. Dormskirk ( talk) 13:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The Army has no 'Royal' in its title because it is directly descended from the Parliamentarian New Model Army which fought Charles I and his 'Royal' army, the Cavaliers.

The Navy OTOH remained unchanged and had less of a role in opposing the King, hence retaining the Royal Navy title.

Originally the army and the navy were the personal property of the monarch - hence 'Royal' - who was free to declare war and do whatever he or she wanted with them. The Civil War changed that so that instead it became Parliament's perogative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 ( talk) 09:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Any reliable reference? I guess not. BlueD954 ( talk) 10:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no reference, but it shouldn't be too hard to find in any good history of the British Army or English Civil War.

... after The Restoration in the King's ( Charles II) eyes the New Model Army had committed High treason, hence no 'Royal' in the official title. The 'Royal' title is 'in the gift' of the reigning monarch and only he/she can award it, and so for the reason outlined above the force became the 'British Army' instead of the 'Royal Army' because Charles refused to honour the army with the 'Royal' title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.42 ( talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just changed the 'military units and formations founded in 1707' category to 'organizations formed in 1707' and been reverted. I would strongly argue that the British Army as a whole is neither a military unit nor a military formation - it meets the definition of neither. It sits over formations. In particular, it does not have a commander (DOD definition), rather a primus-inter-pares Chief of Staff (Beevor 1991, 192). Units and formations exist within it. Would Mediatech492 kindly like to comment? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Show sources to support your assertion. From what authority do you get these definitions? This is a bold assertion, so it needs to be backed with solid evidence, not just your opinion. Mediatech492 ( talk) 04:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm really baffled to hear you think this is bold, but never mind, I've already partially given the DOD definition of a formation, and said that it doesn't have a commander, rather a chief of staff, and referenced that, but more generally, the British Army is a whole agency/organisation. See Structure of the British Army for the formations and units within it, but nowhere in that article does it claim the whole organisation is either a unit or formation. Or the Shorter (I happen to have the 1973 edition to hand).. 'A land force: a body of men armed for war, and organized in divisions and regiments under officers' (p.106). This reference talks about the entire organisation, and then mentions the formations and units within it, but again does not claim that it itself is a formation (or unit).

Formations at their highest extent are army commands, of which the British Army is too small to have any completely of its own nowadays, merely officers which would have that title, like Commander Field Army. The ARRC is the nearest thing, but is multinational. Anyway, I sense that you may take objection to some of this, so could I ask Dormskirk and Peacemaker67 to please put in third opinions here? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The British Army includes formations (divisions and brigades), but is not one itself. It certainly is not a unit. Formations are operational and tactical groupings intended to fight warfare, the British Army is an overarching organisational, training and administrative structure rather than an operational one, because it does not deploy as a whole. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The British Army is an organisation not a formation or a unit. Best wishes. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That is your opinion, now lets see the RS to support it. Mediatech492 ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it is an organisation. What RS sources can be produced to suggest otherwise? Lyndaship ( talk) 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RETAIN I have no need to prove or disprove anything. You're making the assertion, you need to give RS to support it. 11:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this now, agree with the statements by Buckshot. Per MOD.UK; "The command structure is hierarchical with divisions and brigades responsible for administering groupings of smaller units. Major Units are regiment or battalion-sized..." and so on. It's all there. But am I missing something here? Mediatech492 you seem kinda pissed off. Relax, there's nothing here worth getting bent over, it's just Wikipedia ;-) I have to agree with Lyndaship, do you have any sources to support your position, and/or counter Buckshot's? - wolf 11:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On the sources point, there are plenty of sources which describe it as the UK's "land warfare force" e.g. UK Defence Journal, University of Kent, RT etc. To my mind the UK's "land warfare force" implies an organisation as opposed to the component units. Dormskirk ( talk) 11:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, if there are plenty of sources then there should be no problem for you to put them in. Have nice day. Mediatech492 ( talk) 11:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"Put them in"... where? An edit summary? They're here on the talk page. That's sufficient, if not preferable. You need to stop edit-warring, you're already at 3RR, against multiple editors, within minutes. Just sayin'... - wolf 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If you need to review how sourcing work, please check WP: Manual of Style. one source is all you need. Mediatech492 ( talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Being pedantic and condescending does not serve you. You say only one source is needed? Well, there are three posted just above. So I think we can consider this resolved and move on. - wolf 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Put them in the article and the matter is settled. That is all you were asked to do in the first place. Mediatech492 ( talk) 12:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CATV, "Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing". Please stop edit-warring. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 12:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CATV "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." The fact that it has been contested show that is not clear. I don't see what the issue is. You claim to have the sources, but refuse to provide them them in the article. Therefore, you are the one in violation of WP:Policy, not me. Mediatech492 ( talk) 13:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We have a clear consensus in this discussion (and on the other page at Milhist) that the Army is indeed an organisation ('a body of men armed for war', Shorter Oxford Dictionary; Defence Journal, University of Kent, etc), and, logically, it cannot be otherwise - all human social bodies are. We do not need actually find a source saying 'the British Army is an organisation' given these two facts. Instead we have reached a WP:CONSENSUS. That is binding enough. Given this situation, I will reinsert the category within 18 hours, and I do not expect to see it tampered with. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:British Army is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sad to see it gone. BlueD954 ( talk) 06:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose this following structural change:

1. History (stays the same)
2. Structure (Stays the same)
3. Personnel
   1. Strength
   2. Ranks and insignia
   3. Recruitment
   4. Uniforms
4. Equipment (Stays the Same)
5. Reserve Forces (Stays the same)
6. Current deployments

This is to further standardise this article with others, and itemise the sections into common features. IronBattalion ( talk) 10:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)