Talk:Canadian Armed Forces

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 May 2019 and 30 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XXEastonXx1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

All the Canadian government material I can find refers to the "Canadian Forces" not the "Canadian Armed Forces." Shouldn't this article use the title that the Canadian Forces themselves use? Deleting Unnecessary Words 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree here. I think the official name was changed at some point from Canadian Armed Forces to Canadian Forces but I haven't found a reference. The Forces definitely use Canadian Forces and the abbreviation CF. Cjrother 00:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From the National Defence Act: "14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." I presume the pre-1968 act read "...three Services called the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force." Since there is now only a single service, there is only a tiny semantic difference between Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces. Currently Canadian Forces is the more commonly used name, so I agree the article should be moved.--Indefatigable 01:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Legal, though seldom used name is Royal Canadian Armed Forces, for which I set up a redirect. Spinboy 18:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be renamed. They are officially called the Canadian Armed Forces and informally known as the Canadian Forces. They have never been known as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, rather they are referred to as Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, or Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. Here is the actual text taken from the National Defence Act (R.S., c. N-4, s. 14.):

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.[1]

Plasma east 04:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how you can say that they are "informally known as the Canadian Forces." I've seen references to the Canadian Forces on in many formal places. HistoryBA 23:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

True. Perhaps "shortened to" would be a better way to word that sentence instead of using "informally known as". Regardless, their official name is "Canadian Armed Forces", as per the National Defence Act, however many military and gov't documents also use the short form.Plasma east 02:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

A short passage from the National Defence Act has been quoted twice above to support the contention that the Canadian military is called the "Canadian Armed Forces." I just finished reviewing the legislation and discovered that throughout the act the military is called the "Canadian Forces." This phrase appears dozens of times. The phrase "Canadian Armed Forces" appears but once. Given that the organization calls itself "Canadian Forces" and that the legislation uses both terms with a preference for "Canadian Forces," I would again suggest that we change the title of this article. HistoryBA 23:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I contacted DND's general inquiries desk and received the following response to my question as to which is official:

Both titles are correct. Canadian Forces/Forces canadiennes is what is mostly used as the official title in mostly all the Department of National Defence documents and publications.

This begs the question, should the article follow the National Defence Act which stipulates "one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", or use the more common term?

As an aside, I'm wondering why the word "Armed" has been dropped from most federal gov't references to the organization? During the 70's to the 90's, most bases had an "Armed Forces Day" (some still do). From Google searches on the term, reference is still made by some provincial and municipal governments to the Canadian Armed Forces. It seems that the reorganization in the mid-90's which saw Communication Command dropped and Force Mobile Command renamed to Land Force Command also saw the increasing use of the CF terminology. I'm certainly wrong, but I can't help feeling that this almost seems like a post-Cold War/post-Somalia Scandal rebranding by the federal gov't to dilute the fact that it is a military force... That, or it's another part of the Federal Identity Program. Could also be that it's a simpler acronym, and everyone knows how the military loves acronyms. Plasma east 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term Canadian Armed forces was dropped before 1985. I joined the Canadian Forces in 1985 and it was known as Canadian Forces then.

I joined in '83. I only ever heard "Canadian Armed Forces" in recruiting adverts on TV. All our general service knowledge (GSK) classes referred to the "Canadian Forces" or CF. Hence, CFCC (Canadian Forces Communicaions Command), CFE (Canadian Forces Europe), CFB (Canadian Forces Base), and the ever-lovin' CF uniform. I've always regarded "Canadian Armed Forces" to either be an anomaly; I've never heard it used by anyone who was "in".

I think this should be named Canadian Forces, just on the fact that it is the common term, I very rarely hear the term Canadian Armed Forces, and generally that is in foreign media. Also the fact that according to the person above Canadian Forces is still an official title.

However, post-unification, Canadian military aircraft did carry "shadow-lettered" "Canadian Armed Forces/Forces Armees Canadiennes" titling similar to the former Royal Canadian Air Force titling. On most aircraft (especially the CF-101 and CF-104 fighters; though the CF-5 was adopted pre-unification it did not enter service until after unification and never carried "RCAF" titles, except for a couple of prototypes), the "R" was simply dropped from "RCAF" to read "CAF", though a corresponding French "FAC" was not adopted. This was later changed to a maple leaf roundel bracketted by "Armed Forces/Forces Armees" titling and the word "CANADA" replacing the "Canadian Armed Forces"/"Forces Armees Canadiennes" titles. Up until the mid-1990s, though, "CAF" was still found on military aircraft (usually on the port wing underside, with the last three digits of the aircraft's serial number on the starboard wing underside). So this is an indication that "Canadian Armed Forces" was used officially, at least on aircraft. I've never seen it on "army" or "navy" vehicles/vessels. Having said that, most CF personnel I've talked to do say "Canadian Forces" or else a more specific "army", "navy", or "air force". In print (I'm a member of the Air Force Association of Canada and receive the "Airforce" magazine) I often see "Canada's air force" or "Canada's navy" but usually not "Canada's army" - I tend to see "Canadian Army" (capitalized) moreso --MarshallStack 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Of all the Canadian Standard Military Pattern vehicles I've seen, only tanks have a national identifier (a black maple leaf) on the side. Other vehicles (MLVWs, LSVWs, the old CUCVs) may have some kind of identifying number on the door. I've never seen "Canada", "Armed Forces", or any other such identification. The license plates all say "Canada" on them, tho', but I do not know if they keep those highly-reflective items on in wartime. Civilian pattern vehicles, like staff cars, E-cabs, minivans, etc, usually only have the "cornflake" on the doors (along with the standard issue plates). SigPig 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It should be Canadian Forces, which is the official term. Canadian Armed Forces is an informal term. --Deathphoenix 12:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I recall seeing older pictures of CF-188s with CAF on them, so I wouldn't discount that it was (or still is) used. However, this is a moot discussion (largely) given the abundance of support and mentions of CF. E Pluribus Anthony 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think it's been established here by serving/past members of the CF that Canadian Forces/Forces canadiennes is the correct term and I defer to them. However, I remember being on the subway in Toronto in 1983 and seeing a recruiting advert that said Canadian Armed Forces/Forces Armees Canadiennes - No Life Like It! I also saw similar TV spots in the late '80s on the CBC (showing mainly army training) that used the full CAF terminology.--MarshallStack 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces" is the most formal name, and is what is stated on commissioning scrolls and hundreds of times within the Queen's Regulations and Orders. 'Canadian Forces' has become the norm through common usage. The NDA shuffles it a bit saying "the armed forces of Her Majesty". Canadian Armed Forces is undeniably the official name (NDA), however, prefixing Her Majesty to the name is entirely correct, as they are Her Majesty's Forces and that is the term used on formal documents.--Trackratte 14:33, 27 March 2007

I think the term "Canadian Armed Forces" should be used for the title of this page because that's the offcial name of Canada's military. JoJaEpp (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles are named based on common usage. CAF has become more prevalent over the past year since the directive came out that CAF will be used in all official writing instead of CF. The common name is the CF and is what is used by the CF itself. It is already written in the lead that CAF is the official title. trackratte (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As per most recent CANFORGEN's, the CAF refers to itself as the CAF - this is aligned with the 2012/2013 changes to rank, insignia, Area/Division and base names. The name should be changed to CAF to reflect usage by the Canadian government and CAF itself.

Being a recent former Royal Canadian Air Cadet, and having family in the CF, I can assure you all that "Canadian Forces" is still the most common usage, and are the words that appear on the side of all CF property and as the header on all documents. "Canadian Armed Forces" is the official phrase, yes, but is still mostly only included in legal documents and in official announcements. Using "Canadian Armed Forces" instead of "Canadian Forces" in the page title because it's the official name would be like using the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" instead of "United Kingdom" because the former is the official name; while that's true, the latter is used in the page title, as it is the common, shortened phrase. Breaker 355 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

For clarification here, I'm actually in the Navy right now and I can assure you all that "Canadian Armed Forces" is the only usage that should be used. As per the CANFORGEN reference above, anyone using "CF" is incorrect. The reason everything has CF written on the side of it and is on headers is because those things were labelled that way when the CAF was referred to as the CF. Any new documents or equipment should be labelled with the proper "Canadian Armed Forces" terminology. The current name of this article is correct. Also, this discussion made me realize that my current username references the old terminology, username change submitted.....--CFnavymars (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not to split hairs, but I think we should use official figures for manpower. This section formerly linked to the inaccurate and inconsistent list of military strength by country on Wikipedia; the numbers constantly change, countries are out of order, and the definition of military manpower is not consistently applied from country to country.

E.g., the aforementioned figure of 52,300 for "active troops" is the approximate trained, effective strength, not the total strength of about 62,000. Total strength would include personnel going through the training system, staff temporarily on courses, sick leave, etc. One may argue about whether this is a better measure of military manpower, but since total figures are more readily available from official sources, these should be more accurate. Also, other armed forces on Wikipedia seem to define their "active" strength as total manpower (see aforementioned list). So, why not compare apples to apples? If someone wants to, we can restore the trained, effective strength, but note that this is an estimate, and keep the verified "total" figures as well.

I linked to the DND web site, plus CanadianAlly.com (which, as noted above, is actually a Government of Canada web site). Both have approximately the same figures. I think we can provide the "approximate" figures. I don't think there's any point in trying to be more precise than, say, thousands. --Aardvark114 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

they do that in aus, count all the military not just active ones, so in the aus page its active- 80 000 total 105 000--Gargabook (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gambino - the first source you provided had no reference to the Commander in Chief, but it is irrelevant anyway as the article is about the current C-i-C. The second ref you provide, the GG's website, clearly states that the GG is the Commander in Chief, not the Monarch. Several soldiers in my regiment wear the C-i-C Commendation and it was presented in the GG's name, not the Monarchs. The ref states that in the 1940s, the title of C-i-C passed firmly to the GG unless I am reading something wrong. Please state which part of the reference you feel indicates the Queen is currently the Commander in Chief. Michael Dorosh 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The first souce does indeed explicitly state that the Commander-in-Chief is the Monarch - III. EXECUTIVE POWER, 15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.

Further, the 1904 Act stated: The Command-in-Chief of the Militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.

All the 1947 Letters Patent (as referred to on the GG's website) say in relation to this is: "II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada..."

Though the GG holds the title Commander-in-Chief, it is on behalf of the Monarch as a) the Constitution Act is still the central core of the Canadian Constitution - section III.15 has not been repealed or altered - and b) the 1947 Letters Patent state that the powers the GG is to exercise still belong to the Queen ("powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us"). --gbambino 03:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The sources referred to are correct. What the sources mean is that while "Command in Chief" is vested in the Queen, the title of "Commander in Chief" belongs to the Governor General. It may be a bit pedantic, but she has not given that tile to herself, nor has the Constitution, nor do the Letters Patent infer that she reserves the title to herself.

The 1904 Act is not in force anymore, but it repeats the same language from the Constitution (as quoted here). In this regard it adds little to the analysis.

The Letters Patent set out that there will be a "Governor General and Commander In Chief", two titles for the same individual. They then go on to indicate at clause II that the GG will "exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada." This authorizes the GG to exercise the power of "Command in Chief" for HMQ in right of Canada - which accords perfectly with the GG also holding the title of Commander in Chief.

"Command in Chief" is a power vested in HMQ, but exercised by the GG. "Commander in Chief" is a title, given to the GG. As the GG is authorized to exercise the power consititutionally vested in HMQ there is no conflict. Commander in Chief - GG's title, given by HMQ. Command in Chief - power belonging to the Queen, excercised by the GG. As there can not be two Commanders in Chief for the same forces, this would seem to be the only rationale way to read these two important documents (Consitution and Letters Patent) together and give meaning to the words. (It is the only way I have been able to reconcile the two in any event!) Kreichert (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the Letters Patent make implicitly clear that the GG is the C-in-C. Seeing as there may be considerable disagreement, is there an appetite for changing the main article to reflect this fact? Because right now it reads like the Queen holds the title of C-in-C.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both the King and the Governor General holds the title of Commander-in-Chief 70.29.165.165 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article was nominated on August 26, but I don't see a candidate banner at the top of the page so I won't include a tag saying that it was failed. Before nominating the article again, the five or six citation needed tags need to be addressed and more sources should be added throughout the article as some sections are not sourced at all. The inline citations should also be more consistently formatted to include the author, newspaper, title, etc. See WP:CITET for some templates you can use. Some sections are only a single sentence. Either merge them into another sentence or expand on them so that the single sentences don't stand alone. Additionally, there are a lot of lists within the article, where prose would be more appropriate. Once you have addressed these issues and have looked over the rest of the criteria, consider renominating again. Good job so far, the article is very comprehensive and the images are great. --Nehrams2020 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article says that Canada had the third largest navy at the end of World War Two. Other sources say Canada's was the third largest ALLIED navy, and the fourth largest in the world. Can anyone verify which is correct? PlymouthG (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Canada had the third largest Navy, with the Soviet Union having the fourth. --Kcind (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although I'm pretty sure this info is correct, it should still get a proper citation--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Bambuway has added a photo of the F-35 Lightening II, with the caption "F-35 Lightning II is set to join the Canadian Air Command". According to the official DND page on the project Canada is participating as an industrial partner in producing the aircraft, but has not committed to actually buying any, saying: "In May 2008, the Government of Canada unveiled the Canada First Defence Strategy. This strategy clearly lays out the government's intention to replace the current fleet of CF-18 aircraft with a Next Generation Fighter Capability. The Department of National Defence has completed a preliminary assessment of available options, including the F-35, and anticipates that the Next Generation Fighter Capability project will be advanced to government in 2009." If there is any more recent information indicating an actual order has been placed then let's please see it, otherwise this photo is speculative in this context and doesn't belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lacking any evidence of an actual order then I will remove the image. Please discuss here and provide some indication of an actual order, prior to putting it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The photo was added back in with a reference for Canada's participation in the JSF program. I've removed it again, as, again, it's still not an actual order. Oh, I may have missed the discussion here before it was re-added this time, as requested by Ahunt - I'm still looking for it, in good faith. Think I'll find it? - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Canada bought into this program to bring manufacturing jobs to the country and has only made vague comments about actually buying any aircraft, without a firm commitment. Given our government's new record deficit spending in the last two years I think the chances of ordering any F-35s are fading fast. It is far more likely that we will end up with some leased stop-gap solution to make up for the quickly-airframe-life-expiring CF-18 fleet, combined with limiting their YFR (Yearly Flying Rate), until the next generation of unmanned fighters arrives. All that speculation on my part it to say that these are more reasons to not put a picture of the F-35 in the article until an actual order is announced. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Speeking to a Canadian officer in the Canadian Land Force (now on operations in the UK under British command) he said the Canadian and British forces serve as sister forces under HM the Queen. Dont know if thats actualy official, or that its just due to the close relations between the two nations and out common history, heritage and Royal Family. Recon.Army (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have never seen a ref on that, even in my time in the CF. Sounds like sentiment to me. - Ahunt (talk)

technically "Recon.Army" is correct as Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, but this term is not applied. All regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. As such, all new recruits into the military, navy, and air force are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors, and, according to the National Defence Act, the uttering of disloyal words towards the reigning King or Queen is considered treasonous and "disgraceful conduct"; Such offences may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment......for more info see --> The Canadian Crown and the Canadian Forces. Moxy (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh there is no doubt that the Queen is the head of state of Canada and the Commander in Chief of the CF though the GG, but that a doesn't establish any formal relationship between the CF and any other armed forces. It is more telling that we are NATO partners. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's worth remembering that HM the Queen is Commander-in-Chief as Queen of Canada, a separate Crown from that of the United Kingdom. The oath of allegiance is to her in that capacity. It may be fair to describe Canada and the UK as having "sister forces", but it's not a formal arrangement AFAIK. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know about the development of the CF salute? [2] According to Veteran's Affairs Canada, there were three service salutes before SV Radley-Walters came up with a unified salute because the minister, mentioned as "Pallier" wanted one. I assume the minister is actually Paul Hellyer, the guy who merged all the services together into the CF. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Salutes of Canada might be a good idea, with the CF salute, the salutes that preceded it, salutes from outside the Forces, etc. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The unified salute of the Canadian Forces was originally meant to be a variation on the naval salute with palm down. To perform this salute, where the forearm must 'bend' to be horizontal with the hand, is anatomicallly near-impossible. As a result, salutes by members of the forces vary according to their disposition. Some come close to imitating the 'Hellyer', others imitate the varieties of American salutes that one might see on TV or in the movies, others are similar to those of the leaders of American marching bands where the hand is nearly vertical. In other words, the discipline of the 'salute' has disappeared and the result is ridiculous where it's 'make it up as you go'. This is a far cry from the snappy salutes of the RCN, Canadian Army and RCAF. With the recent restoration of the identities of the navy, army and air force, the original salutes should be restored. Canadian soldiers shouldn't have to go and see an American movie to decide how to salute. pidd (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not a page to bemoan unification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny87514 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Canadian Infantry has recently added many images to this article. I think the article has now become overwhelmed with them. I propose cutting the number down. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Overkill to say the least.  BC  _{talk to me} 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was going to leave this for a few days to gain wider input, but the article was in such a state of duplicated images and such that I have gone ahead and cleaned it up. We can continue this discussion here if there are any further opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. I'm not an expert Wiki editor yet but citation 2 on this page leads to a 'dead link'. I thought someone might want to fix that.

Lewiscb (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)0921 EST 23MAR 2011Reply

  Done.Moxy (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just tested a few links, more than this one is dead now. Most likely has something to do with the whole re-formatting of GoC websites. This will have to be addressed.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.? Is this a sign of renewed loyalty to the Crown, now that the USA appears to be on the wane? ðarkuncoll 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Renewed loyalty"? The Forces have always been loyal to the Queen. It has nothing to do with the States. The Royal prefix just sounds better than Air Command, ect...--Stephen C Wells (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps someone could add this to the article. The intro to this section has a quote from an unnamed Canadaian naval officer. The author of the quote was Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock, DSO, DSC, CD, RCN, who was Vice Chief of Naval Staff in Ottawa in the early 1960s. He was forced to retire for opposing unification. The quote is from "The Thunder and the Sunshine," the second volume of his memoirs.

This is from <http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html> at the bottom of the page. 211.63.151.142 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the past several months, the Canadian government has slowly been changing from using "Canadian Forces" to "Canadian Armed Forces", the actual offial name. Within the last month, the official website has switched to using the full title in the heading and most other places on the website. Is it time to move the page to Canadian Armed Forces? - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from discussion number five above, this conversation has happened a few times over the years. To be clear though, the official name has not changed, only the term preferred by the Government of Canada. As an article is named based purely on common usage and not the official name or even the name used by the institution itself, it really falls to what most Canadians are using. Have you noticed which is being used in newspapers, newscasts, and other media? trackratte (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Nationality of speakers isn't really a consideration in WP:COMMONNAME, though of course it will figure in the frequency of occurrences, WPENGVAR notwithstanding. What little Canadian media I've read probably isn't enough to make a judgement on its current usage in Canada, though what I have read shows that CAF is probably increasing over CF. "Canadian Armed Forces" gets about 3.52 million ghits, while "Canadian Forces" gets about 2.97 million, for whatever it's worth, which is not much for a raw search. The reason I mentioned the website's change in name wasn't to prove it's the official name. However, the updating of the site may well signify a shift in usage from this point on, if it's not evidence that the shift has mostly occurred already. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I actually support CAF for this articles as I simply think its a more accurate title, however I would like to avoid having to change an article title every time the bureaucracy issues a new directive. However, if the facts bear out that CAF is now the most common usage, then I'm all for it. trackratte (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

And to add, the most recent edition of the Maple Leaf quotes the CDS as stating something to the effect of the CAF and CF are both correct, and that the Forces will continue to use CF in all rules and regulations (such as QR&Os for example), but will use CAF in all other external writing. I can't seem to find an online PDF of the Maple Leaf since they changed the entire website around, perhaps someone else will have better lucktrackratte (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Canadian Armed Forces appears to have replaced Canadian Forces in all new military communiques and press releases. CF is being kept on for all existing orders and policy documents only until they are officially superseded or amended, so it would seem we are witnessing a phasing-out of the use of CF/Canadian Forces as the preferred nomenclature. GrahamNoyes (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

"NationX Armed Forces" is commonly used in Wikipedia. Using common encyclopaedic nomenclature is a good thing and helps connect the topics. British Armed Forces is actually not commonly used either, yet it is the name of that article. I think of it as the title of the article, not the name of the organisation. So I'm all in favour. Even if the government changes it to Canadian Forces in future, this article can remain CAF.--IseeEwe (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I undid someone's malicious edit which deleted the entry about the Canadian Forces' decade of darkness (the period from roughly 1994-2004). The entry was well sourced and was added to this page as suggested in a deletion review under the same name. Please do not remove it again.JOttawa16 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the POV text. This same text was found to be unacceptable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness and more recently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decade_of_Darkness it certainly does not belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ahunt:, I have not seen the text you removed, but it is my understanding that material which is deemed not wp:notable enough to desreve its own page on Wikipedia, can still be added to an existing article as long as it is properly sourced? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is not a problem of notability, if you read the text removed you can see it was highly biased and a politically-motivated attack piece. The consensus at AfD was that this sort of thing is inappropriate on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ahunt: I am no big expert on wikipolicy, but it has been my understanding that the way to handle biased information is to provide a counter point (referenced) -- not to remove what one deems to be biased? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

That really applies to issues that have two sides that require balance, this was just a political attack. Regardless, the AfD decision was that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ahunt: Are you saying that political attacks do not have two sides? Or are you saying that the "attack piece" is not sourced? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

No I am saying the consensus at AfD was that the whole thing failed WP:NPOV. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ahunt: I don't believe that wp:AfD discussions can be used as rationale to remove content from unrelated articles. But then I am no expert -- please correct if i am wrong. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This really isn't a technicality, it is a plain practical issue. A wide range of editors reviewed the text and determined that it was a POV attack piece and doesn't belong here. That is a WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This information was well sourced and it happened - simple as that. The deletion review page suggests that the information on the decade of darkness belongs here on the Canadian Forces page and on the perpetrator's page, Jean Chretien. This is complying with the deletion review suggestions and ensuring the entry is neutrally written and well backed up by facts. JOttawa16 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any such suggestion being made in the DRV. Rather that it Appears to be advocacy, implying original research. It was suggested you userspace-draft a policy-compliant new article, not continue to push your current POV elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no such suggestion there. The DRV is not complete, but the trend so far is to endorse the AfD result which concluded that this material is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Stealthily reinserting the AfDed text into articles after AfD is not a good faith way to proceed. Also by using words like "perpetrator" above you are showing your bias and your continued inability to contribute to Wikipedia in the required neutral manner. I would also like to remind you that two different editors have now removed this material from this article. If it is removed a third time and you revert it you will be liable for a block as explained at WP:3RR. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The text has now been removed a third time by a third editor. As I noted above if you revert this you will be liable to be blocked for edit warring. - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The following is the exact entry that keeps being maliciously deleted. Please cite specific issues with the material as it is presented and offer constructive solutions for having it addressed. JOttawa16 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

(NOTE: Text found unsuitable for Wikipedia at AfD and DRV redacted)

First, please assume good faith instead of making personal attacks. Secondly, posting article content that has been deemed unsuitable for articles on the talk page is yet another no-no... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can note that the DRV has now concluded and it has endorsed the original AfD decision that this subject and the text are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe that most people take the word "deployed" to refer to any Canadian Armed Force member serving outside of Canada. Deployed in this article, seems to refer to the CAF definition which is more short term and expeditionary in nature. I think that we can safely and for good reason expand this definition to the former, and include all members serving outside of Canada in any official manner, in NORAD, NATO, secondments to other forces, embassies, High Commissions, and other military postings. --IseeEwe (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deployed means personnel serving on operations inside or outside of Canada. Secondments, NORAD, embassies, etc. shouldn't be included as they are not deployments, they are postings. If people are using the term wrong then Wikipedia is the perfect platform to explain it to them :) --CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will bring this up before there is a big edit war again. The page has just been moved with the reasoning being "Moved to current common name per talk page consensus", This is completely incorrect as seen above by the many talks. I suggest we stick with the norm and start a new talk on the matter an RfC on the matter. Lets try to keep a cool head here...lets assume good faith on BilCat part here. I would also agree to RAF...but lest see what other have to say.-- Moxy (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

TBH I don't understand the problem. I'm a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we did receive a directive two years ago to refer to it as the CAF rather than the CF. According to the National Defence Act either could be used, since the CAF is the one service of the CF, but if the organization is currently favouring CAF why would we keep it at CF here? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The consensus in the above section seems clear to me, that CAF is now the common name along with being the official name. We've waited over two years since the directive was issued to move the page, and I reverted earlier moves at least twice as being premature. If you want to run an RFC, that's fine with me, but I honestly don't think it's necessary. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

RFC is definitely not the way to go here, CAF is now the common usage as Ajraddatz stated above.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely prefer the simple and non-confusing term "CF", however, the mandate handed down by the government was clearly to be called CAF. Until such time as the government changes their mind, the military can be called CF, but is officially CAF and the page should stay that way. Even if it doesn't make sense and complicates naming conventions that have held for over twenty years. You don't have to like it, you have to follow official statements.--Cpt ricard (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140728005416/http://forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/index.page to http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/index.page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 02:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

  - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Armed Forces. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215182932/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian Armed Forces. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331092659/http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm to http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331092659/http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm to http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130104437/http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-n-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-n-5.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-n-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-n-5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181618/http://www.outcan.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8890 to http://www.outcan.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8890
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the past few weeks, I had noticed that "Infobox" under this page lists the services of the Canadian Armed Forces in this order:

• Canadian Army;
• Royal Canadian Air Force; and
• Royal Canadian Navy.

I had twice changed it in the correct order of seniority of service as:

• Royal Canadian Navy;
• Canadian Army; and
• Royal Canadian Air Force.

I had justified this as with the following quote on the edit's page: "The Royal Canadian Navy is the senior service of the Canadian Armed Forces, as Commonwealth custom dictates, therefore it should be listed first. This also follows what is seen on the pages of the British Armed Forces, the Australian Defence Force and the New Zealand Defence Force."

However, user:BilCat reverted it back stating "Wikipedia doesn't follow respect customs of organizations, or else every article on the US military would capitalize Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine, etc."

To me at least, this feels like a double standard. I have always believed that Wikipedia has a duty to help educated its users. Therefore, placing the Royal Canadian Navy first in the listings of the Commands of the Canadian Armed Forces seems to only enforce this mission. It does not cost a thing to change, and it only shows the respect to the traditions of the Canadian Armed Forces and Commonwealth military services.

Therefore, I will modify the page again, and refer people to this topic for discussion. Thank you kindly. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source that this is the proper order? (Not an assumption based on order of precedence based on other commonwealth militaries.) If you do I am inclined to support, since that is what the consensus on the U.S. Armed Forces page is.Garuda28 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You need to wait to gain consensus before making changes that have already been reverted, as per WP:BRD.

Lots of organizations have traditions, precedence and such, but Wikipedia is not bound to follow those traditions. We have our own way of doing things here and that usually means that lists are presented in alphabetical order to avoid giving the impression of bias to subjects.

In my time in the Canadian Forces I found it was mostly navy pers who insisted that they always come first, even though the RCN was formed in 1910, long after the Canadian Army was formed at confederation. Sure they try to claim RN precedence, but the RCN is not the RN. Even in the military this is controversial and taking the navy's side in this would violate Wikipedia's neutrality rules. See WP:NPOV. Regardless, even if this were not controversial, it is not Wikipedia's role to further outside organization's agendas and marketing. If the subject is of note then it can be described as a topic in this article, or in Royal Canadian Navy, as a subject for encyclopedic description, with the appropriate refs cited, of course. I see no reason to violate our neutrality here to further internal squabbles within the subject of the article. If other articles violate our subject neutrality principle then that is an indication they need fixing, not emulating. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The order of precedence of services is not due on the dates that each service was created. Or else, the RCAF should be listed last on the page, as on accounts of dates, the Canadian Army and the RCN were created before the RCAF (however, as it is currently, the RCAF is listed before the RCN). Also, Wikipedia's page on the order of precedence of the branches of the Canadian Armed Forces lists the Naval Operations Branch first..^[1] Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The badge of the Canadian Armed Forces also may be used as evidence. The first element on the insignia is the anchor representing the Navy. Afterwards, the army's swords are above them and finally, the eagle representing the RCAF. This shows the order of precedence of the services. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The page of the Armed Forces Council lists the heads of the commands of the RCN, CA and RCAF in that order. Again, because customs dictates that the RCN is senior in precedence to the CA and RCAF.

Your observations are correct, we normally use alphabetical order, not whatever internal precedence an organization assigns its own components. That goes equally for divisions of General Motors as for military organizations. I don't see any compelling reason here to promote the RCN over the Army and RCAF on Wikipedia, other than navy people would like that. We try to approach subjects academically and neutrally. As as I noted above, the branches should be listed alphabetically on Wikipedia. The military can list them in whatever order they prefer on their own website. As far as other pages being non-neutral, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies., it just indicates more pages need fixing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand the issue here, while the customs are respected on other pages on Wikipedia? Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The issue is simple, those other articles you note violate Wikipedia's policies and need to be fixed so that they are are more neutral in how they present the subject and don't promote any one branch of the service over any other. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ctjj.stevenson can you provide an actual source on order of precedence, not based on your own analysis of the crest or Wikipedia articles (that are unsourced)? Garuda28 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The primary source here is the CFP 200 (link), which specifies the order of precedence for formations and units in s. 18. But it's worth noting that the order of precedence is just for ceremonial purposes, like figuring out where people sit at tables or stand on parade. I'm not sure if it's the best argument to use for structuring items in an infobox. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would also add that CFP 200 is a publication that governs the forces, not Wikipedia. We can mention the precedence issue, if need be, in article text, but we are not behoven to follow it here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’m not opposed to following it, if there is consensus. About 10+ years ago there was a similar discussion with the U.S. Armed Forces, and as a matter of standardization they opted to follow the order of precedence. However there is no need to follow it if we opt not to. Garuda28 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Royal 22e Regiment is a francophone unit. When referring to this unit, the Anglicised version, 22nd, it never used. It is always the Royal 22e Regiment (in French).^[1] 68.202.193.3 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Fred PacilliReply

The Wikipedia you linked to as proof actually disagrees with you in the fist sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have an editor who is edit warring to include "authorized strength" numbers in the info in lieu of actual strength numbers. Template:Infobox national military outlines which numbers are to be used in the box. It says, "active – optional – The total number of personnel currently in the country's armed forces." and "reserve – optional – The total number of reserve personnel in the country's armed forces". The use of "authorized strength" numbers is misleading as the military is unable to fill those empty positions and so this does not give any useful information on current military capabilities. It also makes this article out of line with all other similar articles across Wikipedia. To change the intent of the box requires a whole new consensus and not on this one article, but for all articles on all national militaries. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Canadian Armed Forces underwent a period of decline after the 1968 Canadian Election. Pierre Trudeau's foreign policy shifted Canada's post World War Two strength to a NATO policy critics described as offering "all aid, short of help".[1] Canada's international military commitments further declined with the centralizing of power over the Canadian Armed Forces into the Privy Council Office, taking control over from the Department of National Defense. This action led to excessive spending and over regulating that resulted in "merciless disengagement from broad alliance priorities", particularly in Europe.[1]

The effects of the severe cuts in military expenditure under the Mulroney government was demonstrated with Canada's lack of significant military participation in the Gulf War. David Charters. a director of the University of New Brunswick's Centre for Conflict Studies after the Gulf War concluded that the international perception of Canada as a peacekeeping force, and not a belligerant force, had been maintained.[2] The subsiding of the Cold War led Finance Minister Michael Wilson to announce budget cuts that would lead to the scaling down or closing of 14 Canadian Forces bases.[3] The April 1989 Budget by Wilson also outlined a plan to cut the budget of the Department of National Defence by $2.74 billion over five years.[4] This action combined with the cancellation of the Canada-class submarine led the Canadian Armed Forces to become a secondary priority for future governments.

In 1993 the Somali affair seriously damaged the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces. The beating to death of a Somali teenager by two Canadian soldiers while on a humanitarian mission and attempted cover up by military leadership resulted in the disbanding of Canada's elite Canadian Airborne Regiment.

Canada's military prestiege and reputation suffered further harm under the Chrétien, Martin, and Harper Governments during the Afghanistan War. At the height of Canada's military contribution to the conflict from 2007 to 2009 in Kandahar Province, the lack of ground troops required Canadian commanders to focus efforts on urban centres, leaving the rural areas without a consistent Canadian presence. This lead to the area surrounding the City of Kandahar to be controlled by warlords, criminals, and insurgents.[5] Limited resources and a few thousand Canadian soldiers on the ground meant that limited change could occur especially within an area of 54 000 km or roughly the size of New Brunswick. On March 17, 2009 Greg Gutfeld insulted the Canadian Military when "Lt. 'Gen. Andrew Leslie, chief of land staff, suggested in early March that the military may need a year-long break in operations due to personnel and equipment shortages.[6] The event drew significant Canadian national attention and a subsequent apology from Greg Gutfeld.

In an attempt to have a balanced budget heading into the 2015 Canadian Election the Harper government by 2014-2015 promised to slash $1.1 billion from the roughly $20 billion defence budget. In order to achieve this the government delayed the procurement of equipment for seven years, allowing the triming of hundreds of millions of dollars from the defence budget each year.[7]

Canada has been unable to return to its previous levels of international engagement after the significant cuts in the late 1960s and 70s. During the period equipment in the Airforce, Army, and Navy was left unmaintained and unreplaced. The Canadian Armed Forces under successive governments as a result have been unable to recover to previous levels of international military engagement.[8]

Criticism over the direction and changes to the purpose of the Canadian Armed Forces since the 1960s and onward is held by some in leadership positions. The "unification, bilingualism and peacekeeping had, in addition to overt civilianization of (the) [National Defence Headquarters], seriously eroded the professional foundations of army educational and training establishments set up after the [Second World War]".[9] Decisions for the Canadian Armed Forces since the Trudeau Government of the late 1960s and onward have continued to be made by those in officially approved highly bureacratized slots.[9]

The Trump Administration has been critical of NATO allies not reaching the targeted 2 percent of GDP funding on Military spending, particularly of the Canadian Government.[10]

1.^ Head, Ivan (December 1996). "The Canadian way: shaping Canada's foreign policy, 1968-1984 // Review". Books in Canada. 25 – via ProQuest.

2.^ Allen, Glen (March 1991). "Peacekeepers at war: Canada forges a postwar role". Maclean's – via Academic OneFile.

3.^ Spears, John (May 1989). "Closing of P.E.I. armed forces base like a 'bomb dropping,' mayor says: [ME2 Edition]". Toronto Star – via ProQuest.

4.^ Wu, Terry; Fetterly, Ross (June 1990). "Canadian Defence Policy: An analysis". Canadian Public Policy. 16: 161–173 – via JSTOR.

5.^ Breede, Christian (October 2014). "Defining Success: Canada in Afghanistan 2006–2011". American Review of Canadian Studies – via Scholars Portal Journals.

6.^ "Fox News host apologizes in face of Canadian outrage". CTV News. 23 March 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2019.

7.^ Campbell, Clark (29 March 2012). "Deep cuts to military mark reversal for Harper". The Globe and Mail.

8.^ Robinson, Bill; Abbott, Peter (March 2003). "Canadian military spending: How does the current level compare to historical levels? ... to allied spending? ... to potential threats?" (PDF). project ploughshares – via ploughshares.

9.^ Jump up to: a b English, John (Summer 1998). "[Lament for an army: the decline of Canadian military professionalism]". International Journal. 53 – via ProQuest.

10.^ Tasker, John (11 July 2018). "Trump says NATO allies like Canada are 'delinquent' on military spending. Is he wrong?". CBC. Retrieved 1 July 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXEastonXx1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a small improvement over the first draft that was removed from the article. At least it reads less like a pre-election CPC attack on the LPC. The main problem I have is that it cherry picks refs and text to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by the historical facts. In smaller detail: PE Trudeau's government was responsible for buying the CF-18 fleet and the Iroquois-class destroyers, while Harper's administration actively ignored the CF-18 replacement and the need for a new fixed wing SAR aircraft, cutting the defence budget while engaging in the Afghan War. The current Trudeau government has procured used Australian CF-18s and restarted the CF-18 replacement process, as well as buying new SAR fixed wing aircraft. But all of these are really minor details. If you study Canada's defence since the British regulars were withdrawn in the period after the War of 1812, you will find that Canada's defence policy from then to present has been extraordinarily consistent through all the many Liberal and Conservative administrations. If you set aside the two force built ups for the two world wars as unusual circumstances, then the rest is very uniform. There is no trend line there. All those governments saw fit to provide the nation with a very small military that is only capable of carrying out limited domestic and foreign operations. It doesn't make sense to discuss the military history from 1968 to present as some sort of "military bleeding of a once-great force". It was exactly the same during the Fenian Raids (1866-1871), when the nation had to put Army Cadets on active service due to lack of troops, or the Northwest Rebellion (1885) when we couldn't even get what troops we had to Saskatchewan in a timely manner to put down a very small group of rebels. We sent all we could to the South African War at the turn of the 20th century: 7,000 troops. That was it. During the October Crisis in 1970, we called out pretty much everyone available to just guard a few vital points in Montreal. The point is that today our military is in much the same position it was in 1866, 1900, 1914, 1939 and 1970. The section you are proposing makes it look like there was a grand decline in military capability through unintentional government neglect, but the bigger picture shows that a small armed forces has always been the intentional policy of all governments right from Confederation and even before that, due to a longstanding peace with the US following 1814. Despite regular media and academic hand-wringing and the two unusual large mobilizations (1914 and 1939), the nation has otherwise had a very consistent 150 year policy of spending its tax money on other priorities. If you want to include a section on the history of defence spending then it needs to take a much longer view. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Canadian Armed Forces 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:Canadian Armed Forces 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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know previous discussions have centred on a wish to not give undue attention to certain services over others and to remain neutral, which is admirable. However, I'd like to point out that listing one service before another in an infobox list is not giving undue preference necessarily, as after all, in any list something has to go first and something last, so whichever criteria you apply whether it by alphabetical or other, one of the services has to be listed first. So, the question is which criteria should be applied. Currently it is alphabetical order which, after having looked at verifiable sources, I believe is a somewhat arbitrary and editor preference based way to do things when what we should be doing is following the verifiable sources (in this case the established convention within Canada).

As a result I offer the following sources:

1. The National Defence Act, which, as legislative law passed by Parliament follows the established convention: "the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force".

2. This official government site for the Canadian Forces listing the environmental services which lists "Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force".

3. This official DND/CAF government site listing the "Organizational Structure" of the Forces, which in the Organigramme lists the services in the order of "Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force".

4. At bottom, the above source (para 3) also lists under the section "Reporting to the Chief of the Defence Staff" the services in the following order: "Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force".

As we can see through the verifiable sources, Canadian Laws and official sources all list the services in the same order. It doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion why that is, or what the underlying logic is per se, but that in Canada the services are always listed in this order. Further, this listing has nothing to do with "parade precedence", or "putting one service above another". As I said, as an encyclopedia our job is to avoid forcing our opinion as much as possible, especially when verifiable sources are present, in which case our job is to neutrally convey them in as simply and as succint as a manner of possible. By using simple preference, in this case alphabetical order, it can be argued that we are giving the Canadian Army undue preference above the others. However, in simply following the official and legal conventions of the country and subject of this article using verifiable sources, we ensure that we are implimenting this particulary list as neutrally and verifiably as possible. trackratte (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: I forgot to add that the UK Armed Forces (likely the closest relative of this article) treats this issue in the same way as the sources suggest above, i.e. RCN, CA, RCAF in that order. trackratte (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 2nd EDIT: The service order of Navy, Army, Air Force has been in place in the article main body and infobox here since at least 2007. Even now, the article main body is in the order of Navy, Army, Air Force. It was only the infobox order that was changed by an Anon 1 April 2018, so fairly recently and seemed to have slipped through the cracks as it creates a contradiction between the infobox and the main body. trackratte (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I believe all of the participants on a previous discussion on this matter are the following: Ctjj.stevenson, Garuda28, Ahunt, Ajraddatz. Please feel free to ping anyone that I may have inadvertently missed. trackratte (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seeing the sources you’ve provided, I think I can support that. I don’t think doing it alphabetically gives the Army an undue amount of precedence, but that doesn’t mean precedence is a bad way to do it. The United States Armed Forces articles lists all of their services in order of precedence (a debate had 10 years ago). Given this, I support listing the services in order of precedence. Garuda28 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies. This is all just "corporate marketing" essentially. Just because there is a military tradition that the services are listed in the British order of founding, is no reason for us to do this. (It certainly isn't Canadian order of founding, because that is Cdn Army 1867, RCN 1910 and RCAF 1924). Wikipedia is not bound by the internal traditions or even the desires of the subjects we cover. General Motors may have a date order of precedence for their divisions, Boeing may have a seniority of their company subsidiaries, but we list them alphabetically or in random order. It's not our job to to do PR for the organizations that we cover and especially not to take sides in internal competitions. Furthermore, in this case, it is worth pointing out that this order of precedence issue is controversial, as it is only members of the navy that seem to argue that they somehow have precedence in all matters, and not just ceremonial parades, (including encyclopedias, apparently). The army and air force have never accepted that claim. I have been in air force parades where the navy were pointedly not put on the right of the line. I support retaining alphabetical order to comply with NPOV, which is a policy, not a guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

NPOV is precisely the point, as we are not following the sources here but are instead just imposing an editorial whim. Second, as I've added above, the long standing consensus here is for the same ordering as the verifiable sources (navy, army, air force) since at least 2007. An anon changed it in Spring 2018 in the Infobox, however, the article body still uses the source ordering.

So right now, based on an Anon edit that seemed to have slipped through the cracks, we have the Infobox that is not inline with the article body, not in line with what the consens was for a period of 11 years, and not inline with what the actual sources say, and further not inline with other articles that list the environments in other Wiki articles. trackratte (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It has just been changed back to alphabetical order by another editor, so your arguments seem to have not been supported. I stand by my remarks above, that Wikipedia is not here to do advertising work for the navy or any other branch of service, or choose sides in any internal organizational squabbles, so it should remain in alphabetical order as WP:NPOV. Let's see if any other editors would care to offer opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

1. As per policy when as issue is under dispute, whatever the last stable version is (i.e. status quo) remains until a new consensus is formed. Since this page has used service orders as per the verifiable sources since 2007, that is the version that remains. Now, I had restored this status quo in the info box, which you reverted, and I've left it as the version that you reverted to had been in place for about a year I believe, so I have left it alone pending consensus here, so I would expect all other editors to do the same.

2. Now back to the issue at hand, NPOV does not mandate that everything must be listed in alphabetical or chronological order, but instead explicitly states that NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" the information "that have been published by reliable sources".

3. I would like to respectfully point out that your assertions (barring references to support your claims) that the way the components are listed in all of the official and legal sources "is controversial, as it is only members of the navy that seem to argue that they somehow have precedence in all matters" and that "The army and air force have never accepted that claim" is itself a clear indication of undue POV/biais (which for full disclosure I am normally the exact same way as those naval types are tricksy...but my personal bias aside, it's easy to resolve by just following the 'published reliable sources'). So in sum, listing in alphabetical order is not policy, listing in chronological order could be just as neutral as alphabetical so choosing alphabetical to ensure the best service is first (Army, obviously) or that the worst service (Navy, boo) is not first is POV/bias, so the only clearly neutral way to present this is to avoid editorial POV entirely by just following how it is treated in Canadian Law and in all of the official sources. trackratte (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Edit: also, it currently seems by those who have chimed in in the Talk or mainspace is 50/50. trackratte (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

On the limited topic of NPOV, I’m in agreement with @Trackratte: that NPOV does not require them to be listed alphabetically. The U.S. Armed Forces page had a similar discussion years ago where consensus was reached to list them by service precedence, so the precedence for this does indeed exist on Wikipedia. Garuda28 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit added "CA" after Gen Eyre's name, "RCAF" after LGen Allen's name, etc. This is not appropriate with the modern CAF structure and organization. RCN, CA and RCAF are not military services like they were before 1968. They are commands within the unified single service called the CAF. The senior leadership and other members of the CDS office are not members of the RCN, CA or RCAF. There are many other organizational units as well that aren't part of those three commands. Indefatigable (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is not right. Thanks for removing it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The numbers of active and reserve personnel don't add up. The article indicates 68,000 active personnel and 27,000 reserve personnel, but the associated text indicates: "The Royal Canadian Navy is composed of approximately 8,400 full-time sailors and 5,100 part-time sailors. The Canadian Army is composed of approximately 22,800 full-time soldiers, 18,700 Reservists, and 5,000 Canadian Rangers.The Royal Canadian Air Force is composed of approximately 13,000 Regular Force personnel and 2,400 Air Reserve personnel". Moreover, these numbers are not in accordance with the numbers indicated in the wikipedia pages dedicated to each service branch. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ZeusMinerva25: You will not get the same number as what the DND provides for the entire CAF if you solely just add up the figures for the Army, RCAF, or RCN, as there are additional CAF personnel that serve in the other branches (like CANSOFCOM or Intelligence Command), as well as the fact that the specific RCN, RCAF, Army numbers problably would not include interservice/support personnel in the purple trades.

That said, I removed the note as it was uncited content. Not to say the figures aren't correct (moreso out of date), but the citation does not support the content in the note, as it is simply the home page to the DND (which presently doesn't provide any personnel figures, even when looking at the home page through Wayback with the access-date provided in the citation). If someone has an actual citation to support that type of note, feel free to re-add it though. Leventio (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply