Talk:United States Armed Forces

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Armed Forces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States Armed Forces was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Military history: National / North America / United States

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Military history / Government High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section "Order of precedence" Change:

Under Department of Defense regulation, the various components of the U.S. Armed Forces have a set order of precedence that is based on founding dates.^[1] This order is used for the display of service flags as well as the placement of soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, guardians, and coast guardsmen in formations and parades.^{[citation needed]}

to

Under Department of Defense regulation, the various components of the U.S. Armed Forces have a set order of precedence that is based on founding dates. This order is used for the display of service flags as well as the placement of soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, guardians, and coast guardsmen in formations and parades.^[2]

(notes) The citation needed is not required, as citation 288 covers the statement marked as citation needed. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20654_R600_25_Admin_FINAL.pdf This is a more recent link to the army regulation cited, (section 4-2) which lists that the ordering is used during parades and ceremonies.

Next, flags are a shorter order, I believe, than this long list provided in regulation. The flag order may be based on that regulation, but it might be useful to have a "flag order" list in here, based off this source: https://www.va.gov/portland-health-care/stories/the-history-behind-our-nations-military-service-flags-0/

add

1. U.S. Army

2. U.S. Marine Corps

3. U.S. Navy

4. U.S. Air Force

5. U.S. Space Force

6. U.S. Coast Guard

The last paragraph of "Order of precedence" has a "failed verification" citation about Space Force that I believe can be solved with the following citation: https://www.va.gov/portland-health-care/stories/the-history-behind-our-nations-military-service-flags-0/. It reads, "It should also be noted that the Coast Guard flag is displayed in a different position depending on whether the United States is at war or peace. During wartime, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Defense and is displayed between the US Navy and US Marine Corps flags. During peacetime, the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is displayed last." Thus, I believe the following should be

Change

The Coast Guard is normally situated after the Space Force, but if it is moved to the Department of the Navy, then its place in the order of precedence would change to being situated after the Navy and before the Air Force.

to

The Coast Guard is normally situated after the Space Force, however, during times of war, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Defense, and is thus placed between the Navy and Marines. During peacetime, the Coast Guard operates as part of the Department of Homeland Security.[citation to va.gov link here]

Lastly, the order presented in this section of the article is incorrect, I believe. As it is presented in the regulation, it should be as follows:

Change

[enumerated list of branches existing in the article]

to

(1) Cadets, United States Military Academy.

(2) Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy.

(3) Cadets, United States Air Force Academy.

(4) Cadets, United States Coast Guard Academy.

(5) Midshipmen, United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(6) U.S. Army.

(7) U.S. Marine Corps.

(8) U.S. Navy.

(9) U.S. Air Force.

(10) Army National Guard of the United States.

(11) U.S. Coast Guard.

(12) U.S. Army Reserve.

(13) U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.

(14) U.S. Naval Reserve.

(15) Air National Guard of the United States.

(16) U.S. Air Force Reserve.

(17) U.S. Coast Guard Reserve.

(18) Other training organizations of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, in that order.

Space Force is not listed, so it wouldn't necessarily be accurate to put it on the list. Owen (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When directed by the President or by an act of Congress The Coast Guard serves in the Department of the Navy, not in the Navy itself. This is the situation that the Marine Corps currently serves; not as a part of the Navy but rather in the Department of the Navy. When directed to serve with the Department of the Navy the Coast Guard retains its law enforcement mission. Marines often serve on Navy ships and the Coast Guard personnel would also serve on Navy ships if directed to do so.

The Space force is a part of the Department of the Air Force and not of the Air Force itself. This is like the situation with the Navy and Marine Corps; both are a part of the Department of the Navy. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 10 U.S.C. § 118 (prior section 133b renumbered in 1986); DoD Directive 1005.8 dated 31 October 77 Archived 3 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine and AR 600-25 Archived 6 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine
^ 10 U.S.C. § 118 (prior section 133b renumbered in 1986); DoD Directive 1005.8 dated 31 October 77 Archived 3 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine and AR 600-25 Archived 6 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine

Partly done: I will do the first part but I believe the rank list is not necessary…. Valorrr (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should not be citing the USCA

The correct practice is to cite the USC itself, if a law is codified therein.

If a law is uncodified, then the correct approach is to cite the Statutes at Large directly and then also note that the text of the law can be found in various places in annotated versions of the USC. Coolcaesar (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolcaesar, thank you for your correction. Do I assume correctly that the U.S. Code should be cited, not the U.S. Code, Annotated? Does USCA in American legal terminology refer to U.S. Code, Annotated? Many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, I noted your revert of my edit with the edit summary "this is a reliable source." Would you kindly indicate why you believe U.S. Code - the law of the land - should have less attention paid to it, is less reliable, than a U.S. Navy style guide? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly show me where I said: "I believe U.S. Code - the law of the land - should have less attention paid to it, is less reliable, than a U.S. Navy style guide." Diff preferred, but a link will do. Oh, and no ping required. Thanks - \\'cԼF 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the ref in the first place? I added this back in 2011 when the article was moved from "United States armed forces" to "United States Armed Forces" per Talk:United States Armed Forces/Archive 3#Requested move. The article title has been stable for 14 years now. So why have you suddenly, and mostly unilaterally, decided that the USC is the only allowed source that we can follow on style issues? BilCat (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to User:Buckshot06: One of the first things that is pounded into first-year law students in law school is the critical difference between official versions of the law versus unofficial versions of the law. In general, one should try to cite the official version of a statute or regulation. But then there are a bunch of exceptions that I don't have time to explain. The full subject takes up about 20 to 40 pages in a typical Lawyering Skills or Paralegal Skills textbook and over three months to teach properly.

As for User:BilCat's inquiry to User:Buckshot06: I am neutral on the underlying issue of capitalization of the title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, are you in a position to direct me to a sample or specimen discussions of official versus unofficial versions of U.S. federal law? What you are talking about seems the most WP:RELIABLE source regarding this somewhat bizarre prioritization of a single service style guide over clearly accessible Federal Law. I remain extremely surprised as to why editors here are arguing for "United States Armed Forces" when what US Code appears to name are the "Armed forces" or maybe "armed forces" of the United States of America. Surely we use the most reliable official source? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this to and fro, a seeming fixation on the grammer guide that is the US code, and with no apparent conclusion here, we now have this, which I'm not entirely certain is an improvement. It seems kinda... clunky. (JMHO) - \\'cԼF 03:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, second sentence

Why are there scare quotes around "armed forces" in the 2d sentence? It's a common term. Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed. - \\'cԼF 23:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 10 U.S.C. § 118 (prior section 133b renumbered in 1986); DoD Directive 1005.8 dated 31 October 77 Archived 3 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine and AR 600-25 Archived 6 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine

[2] 10 U.S.C. § 118 (prior section 133b renumbered in 1986); DoD Directive 1005.8 dated 31 October 77 Archived 3 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine and AR 600-25 Archived 6 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine

[1]

[2]