File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg

Lebanon

There is conscription in Lebanon, just as there is in Norway. 1 year. someone please correct the image. Sherwelbuilding (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

According to CIA (2007), there is not. Norway is already red. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Information

hi these countries have not conscription: (from asia: 1- Afghanestan. 2- Irag. 3- Yemen. (from Africa: 4-Tanzania 5-Ghana (from America: 6-Peru

and these countries have no enforced conscription, although the law allow this but not enforced, so we should consider their now condition and paint them blue:

1- Ethiopia(Africa) 2-Uruguay(America) 3- Chile(America) 4-Bolivia for seeing refrence go to the: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2024.html.

I do not Know how i Correct it, please correct it. thanks

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightstallion"

Greenland is listed as having no army. Greenland is a part of Denmark, which does have a conscript army. Any explanation for this rather basic error? --86.52.108.165 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia do not exercise conscriptions. And so is lots of many other country in 'red' colours --Ryan_Aldren 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which countries in particular? ›mysid (☎

∆✎) 11:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Like China, for instance (even if it exists in theory). And the US have the Selective Service System. Atchom 02:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the map needs to be updated. Justin Case (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Philippines also does not have enforced conscription. Wakkow (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Poland has abolished conscription.

Updated the map for Philippines, Malaysia, and Poland. China does exercise conscriptions. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexico, have conscription coded in law, but doesnt enforce it. The Servicio Militar Nacional is more an civil service. youths in SMN doesnt take part in military activities besides some marching drills. The active and reserve military is an all-voluntary force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.35.244 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

China (PRC) does not exercise conscription, at least according to the PLA article. This also sense, China's army of 2 million may sound large, but if China really exercised conscription it would be far larger, especially considering China is a comparatively young country.--90.199.141.162 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We in Indonesia don't have conscription either. Matahari Pagi (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Austria should be red, 73% of males are recruited, of which about 45% opt for alternative service, leaving the percentage of males that go to the army around 40%, usually just over. Ideally the map should account for alternative service, but even then it's still forced labour that is permitted as part of conscription, thus the 73% should count in Austria's case. 80.123.221.234 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Image legend

  No armed forces

  No conscription

  Plan to abolish conscription within 3 years

  Conscription

  No information

Japan

Shouldn't it technically be green? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on what? ›mysid (☎∆✎) 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it has Self-Defense forces, which still counts as an armed force, though. --92.64.206.141 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution of Japan prohibits them from having an active military. That's why they rely on the American armed forces for national defense. This happened, not surprisingly, as a result of World War II. InMooseWeTrust (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 Corrections

Japan should be green. Sweden has ended conscription recently. It should be blue. Conscription is legal in China (like in USA), but it's never practiced so it should be blue also. Afghanistan is red because even though the government and military are in shambles, it's expected de facto that all the men in the village will fight if there are enemies nearby. InMooseWeTrust (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Japan Self-Defense Forces ›mysid (☎∆✎) 06:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Junuary 2011 Corrections

Germany will suspend conscription on 1 july 2011. Albania military is all professional since 2011. It should be blue. Conscription in Indonesia is legal and selective but not enforced for the long number of volunteers like China. the should be blue. Ethiopia have conscription but is not enforced. Zimbabwe have conscription. Should be red. Taiwan abolish conscription in 2014, it is orange now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.208.99 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixes.

• In Mexico and China, although conscription is in Military code, is not legally enforced, so they should be blue.

Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for this? http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/ says they both have conscription. Not only is it in the Military code, it is also in the Constitution. Also our article Conscription in Mexico says Mexico has conscription. The China article says they don't, but then again they don't cite any sources. Our article on Conscription says China has selective conscription. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 06:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau

Need a red dot for Singapore, and blue dots for HK and Macau. 194.63.116.72 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia etc.

Ethiopia atleast should be blue, as conscription does not exist: [1]. Also it seems Madagascar should be blue according to CIA [2], so should be Democratic Republic of Congo according to CIA and WRI that it has not practiced conscription. Uganda seems to be all-professional force as of 2010 according to CIA as well. Seems like this map has been done with the CIA reference, so this Wiki-map should be updated accordingly, with some cross-referencing for reliability. --Pudeo' 12:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Further countries that should be blue instead of red according to the CIA: Gabon, Yemen, Uganda. Then Philippines and Zimbabwe should be RED according to the same source. --Pudeo' 12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany blue

Germany should be blue as of today, there's no longer any conscription since July 1st, 2011. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, It has to be changed to blue, now it's the same situation as e.g. in France. So, please change. Why will the blue color reverted to orange? --Holger1974 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the editor responsible for the reverting... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a database error. The actual SVG has Germany colored blue. The PNG version will probably update itself some day. ›mysid (☎✎) 18:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

This map needs to be updated to include the South Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfand (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Too bad we don't have any information on its conscription status? --Pudeo' 18:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless it's still an independent country now and the map should reflect that. It can be shown in gray in the same manner that the Sahrawi A.D.R. is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.112.193 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

ROC

The Republic of China actively conscripts, although conscription is being phased out by 2015. The map should be updated with it in orange. Kiralexis (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually constription will not be phased out after 2015. I know it is somewhat confusing, but this is what's gonna happen:

The govt says that it's going to implement an all-voluntary force.

The govt says that males who opt for not joining the army will have to complete a 3 to 4 month "military training".

The law states that such military training is part of military service. (see [3])

So after 2015, will there be conscription in Taiwan? The answer is YES: Taiwan will have an "all voluntary force" while basically every eligible male is still going to be conscripted into the camp. So conscription will remain in place. Politicians' tricks. Qrfqr (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way, the map currently labels the ROC as a non-conscription state. Should this be changed to red (actively conscripts) or orange (conscription being phased out)? Kiralexis (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would say RED! Qrfqr (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this source a 4 month military training obligation is to stay even after 2017, after which the 1 year service may be abolished. So red still.--XoravaX (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Chile

There is conscription in Chile (per table and Military of Chile article) but the map shows that there is not! Oleg-ch (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new category

I propose we add a new category titled "Constitutional but suspended/not enforced" Gondor2222 (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a category should be added for nations that have a legal provision for conscription but don't currently use it. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Russia should be yellow, as they are planning to abolish conscription--213.216.208.243 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Greenland

Greenland should be blue. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark has conscription, but people from Greenland are exempt from military service. The same goes for The Faroe Islands (see [4] - (in Danish)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.183.47.162 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Antarctica has an army?

Antarctica is currently coloured as "no enforced conscription." Yet, there is a colour option of "no standing army." The fact that Antarctica was not classified as "no standing army" implies that it does have a standing army, it's just not a conscripted army. Since Antarctica isn't even a country, how can it have a standing army, especially as the Madrid Protocol designates it as a 'natural reserve devoted to peace and science' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Politics)?

Nice picture though

--Wertyu739 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Parts of Antarctica belong to certain countries. Only Marie Byrd Land is neutrally reserved. Perhaps we should color each “colony” individually. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 06:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark is marked as purple (as "Countries that have conscription by law, but not in practice."), however a small amount of the draftees each year aren't volunteers. In 2015 96.9% of the draftees were volunteers, while the rest were drafted through a lottery, and had to serve (an alternative civilian service is available though for those drafted in the lottery) or face up to 4 months jailtime as ruled by værnepligtsloven ('Conscription act'). Even according to the War resisters international the last known total objection case resulted in a penalty. Therefore mandatory conscription is still used also in practice (any able men may be conscripted through the lottery with no right to total objection without penalty), and Denmark should be marked red.--XoravaX (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would keep Denmark colored purple. We agree that a clear majority are volunteers, and according to Jyllands Posten conscription has ended in practice.[5] There are no recent cases of imprisoned total objectors. There has been one case in 2014 where a person voluntarily singed up but objected afterwards, which resulted in 14 days of home arrest.[6] The punishment for total objectors cannot be harsher than that 14 days, and it is doubtful they are punished at all. Anyway since a significant majority are volunteers, the system is not a conscription based system in practice. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The first link of yours is pretty old, 6 years, and a somewhat subjective source, seeing that the government officials say that not all of the recruits are volunteers as of 2015, and the second link contradicts it in my opinion. Now that I took more time to investigate the laws further, the 2006 rewrite of the Conscientious Objector Act ('Militærnægterloven') or literally "Law on conscription fulfillment through civil work" places a maximum of 1 year penalty (see §6) for objection to the civilian service. The law says clearly that total objection results in a fine or detention of up to one year. Therefore it is punishable by law (and even if the punishment is at the lowest end of the spectrum, it is still a punishment thus enforcement of the law - if the total objector at the link weren't punished, it would be different) and I would keep it red under these conditions, as the law places a penalty for total objection. It is in my opinion clearly different from the Norwegian or Lithuanian system where objectors aren't punished by law. If anyone has contradicting information (such as that after 2014 all cases are pardoned or such), please mention. --XoravaX (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And to make my point further clear (you can see Roopeluhtala's previous comment on the Wikimedia Commons talk page of this map), the 14 day house arrest (ubetinget fængsel) is a possible penalty under Militærnægterloven 6 §. The law states that a penalty of up to one (1) year detention (fængsel), in which the house arrest is included (the penalty in this case was 'ubetinget fængsel') or a fine. That is therefore correct enforcement of the law, thus I see it as that conscription is in place also in practice, as total objection results in a legal punishment. To settle this without falling into an edit war, I've asked a WP:Third opinion on this. --XoravaX (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Before commenting here I took a look at the Conscription in Denmark article. That article makes no mention of an assertion that conscription in practice has ended in Denmark, but is states that conscription is the law in Denmark. I think this infographic needs to agree with that article, as articles are held to much higher standards of verifiability than infographics are. If, however, the information in that article is wrong, it should be updated. Unless the information in Conscription in Denmark changes, Denmark should be red in this image. Bradv 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with Brad. The infobox and section at Danish_Defence and as well as the article on Conscription in Denmark all indicate that conscription is active. If this is not accurate, it would be wise to start a discussion on one or both of those talk pages. You will find more individuals knowledgeable about this subject there. There is no distinction or disclaimer in the image about a certain minimum percentage this conscription needs to make up, nor punishments for disobeying, so that does not seem to be relevant. So I would say it should be red. (4th opinion)Dig Deeper (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@XoravaX and Roopeluhtala: Pinging the 2 contributors to make sure they got the message, since no response and no original pinging.

Ukraine

Ukraine is listed as planning to abolish conscription within 3 years. However this is false; the conscription was indeed abolished at the beginning of 2014, but was reinstated following the Maidan revolution and the Russian annexation of Crimea. CIA World Factbook also mentions that Ukraine has compulsory military service with a service obligation of 18 months. Therefore Ukraine should also be red.--XoravaX (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov claimed on 30th November 2016 that conscription will not end in the immediate future. In the meanwhile, even though the use of conscripts in the war zone was ended, the conscript training goes on. So red until a date within the oncoming three years is announced for end of the conscription (Roopeluhtala changed it to orange, as president Poroshenko had said that Ukraine should transfer to an all-volunteer force; however no date for the abolishment was announced, and orange is defined as planning to abolish conscription within 3 years).--XoravaX (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem in the 3 year limit is that often the government does not give exact date for the change. That's why in the english version the definition was changed to "Plan to abolish conscription in the near future". However this is ambiguous too, since the near future is up to definition. The best definition would be "Plan to abolish conscription by the current government." I will change the definition of the english and finnish version to that, and hopefully other languages will follow. By this new definition Ukraine should remain orange. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The purple colour meaning change

Roopeluhtala recently made an unilateral change of the definition of the purple colour as "countries that have conscription by law, but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist", instead of "conscription by law, but not in practice". This is getting pretty silly, as we *don't* really have enough sources to define whether the countries where conscription is in use compel more than 20% of the age group, and how volunteers are measured in these countries (thus this leaves the map ill-sourced). Also, this change would require to change the status of the US and China to purple too, as they have conscription in their law (US Military Selective Service Act and Military Service Law of the People's Republic of China), but they just don't draft at the moment, as volunteers fill the ranks well enough. This also creates a problem since Russia has serious problems concerning draft dodging (around 235 000 dodged the draft in 2013 by avoiding the draft notification the previous year), and with 65% of the drafted being fit to serve in 2013, with 303 000 being drafted that year (153 000 at spring and 150 000 at fall), this results in that only slightly under 200 000 or 15% of the drafted age cohort of both sexes (of 697 000 males and 665 000 females) served - thus Russia would go also as purple, as that's less than 20% of the cohort being compelled to serve. This is completely ridiculous as Russia's system is completely different from the US or China, but under the new definition for the purple colour all of them would be purple. Therefore I suggest that we get rid of the purple colour altogether, and define the red colour as countries that have an active draft system, regardless of the volunteer or intake percentages. This would count countries such as Norway, Denmark and Russia as countries that have conscription (as they all have an active draft system with differing percentages of volunteer intake and total intake), but countries such as the US and China would be blue as they don't have an active draft system, even though they have conscription by law. I'll issue a WP:RFC on this, as I'm quite sure we can't reach an agreement by ourselves. --XoravaX (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Noone in USA or China are compelled to enlist, so they do not have conscription, and should remain blue even if purple is an option. You might have forgotten the definition of conscription which is "the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service"[7]. Conscription only exists if some part of people are compelled to enlist. Purple color is useful in separating countries that have a selective conscription from those which have compulsory service for bigger share of the population, so I do not see a reason to get rid of purple. Good work on Russia, it is valuable information that less than 20% of russian youths are conscripted. I also think this information should be reflected in the map. Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

However USA and PRC fill your new definition of "countries that have conscription by law, but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". They very much have conscription by law (which I already notified), and they also fill that requirement that less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist, as no-one is at current state. --XoravaX (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As user XoravaX has pointed out, countries which do not compel anyone to service, but have conscription in law, could be colored both blue and purple. This could be avoided by changing the purple description to "More than 0% but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". Would that be ok for XoravaX? I ask you first so we can avoid an edit war. Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If we are to keep the purple colour, it should be defined something along the lines of "active draft system, but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". This would rule out countries like the US or PRC, while keeping Norway, Lithuania etc. in, as they have the draft system active while they don't need to compel people to serve at current volunteer levels. However I'm not that certain the 20% of the cohort (or 40% of the male cohort) is required information or a good borderline between the two colours. Of course it shows that there are some countries that conscript more and some less, but it doesn't take a stance on how much of the conscripts are volunteers (as eg. in Russia, Switzerland, Austria and Finland there is no such thing as volunteer categorised in the draft process except for women) verus compelled conscripts. And for some countries we just can't get the sources to be able to clarify whether it should be red or purple, which makes the map ill-sourced. But I'll still go for WP:RFC so we can get more opinions on this matter. --XoravaX (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Active draft system" sounds better to me than "Conscription by law". I personally don't think the map is ill sourced even if we do not find conscription percentage for all countries. It is anyway relevant for those countries for which this information is available. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved your comment because the RFC screwed up the layout a bit. But yes, make it that for the time being. I still oppose the colour purple, but that's better than the previous definition. --XoravaX (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the colours of the map

The consensus is to keep purple. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should red be simplified to "active draft system" or should we keep purple? XoravaX (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove purple Purple is unnecessary, an active draft versus no draft contains the core information required of this map, without artificial borderlines. XoravaX (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep purple I think purple is useful distinction between countries that have a selective conscription and that force a bigger part of population to service. For example in Denmark only a few percent of men are compelled to do the service (in 2014 it was only 19 men[8]), and it is informative to present Denmark in different color than countries where a majority of men are compelled. Purple was added to the map to describe countries which fall in between conscription and no conscription. For example Norway has conscription by law for both women and men, but nobody is compelled to enlist[9] and there is no punishment for objecting. Since conscription is defined in Wikipedia[10] as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service", Norway does not have conscription by definition, but if you do a Google search, you will find many news sources claiming Norway has conscription for both sexes. If we remove purple, there will probably be many editors who claim Norway should be colored red. This is wrong by definition, but they will provide news articles to support their view, and explaining the definition is time-consuming. I think the purple color is also useful in avoiding this kind of edit wars. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep purple summoned by bot per Roopeluhtala. Purple is clearly useful to have, especially in preventing edit wars and being the most precise. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This seems like a good case where nuance make a difference. If we wanted to get picky, we could probably subdivide purple, but would likey start to make the map unreadable. TimothyJosephWood 11:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The orange colour definition change

Roopeluhtala recently made an unilateral change also of the definition of the orange colour as "countries where the current government is planning to abolish conscription". This is very dubious compared to the previous definition of "countries that plan to abolish conscription within 3 years", which was clear and required decisions set to a certain date to happen to be made for the abolishment. Since I back the old definition as it is exact and clear versus the new one which is not clear (does it require decisions or not, what if the plan/opinion isn't shared across the government, what if there are just vague talks about it etc.), I'll ask a WP:3O on this to clarify this.--XoravaX (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See File_talk:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg#Orange_color_definition_has_been_changed for Roopeluhtala's stance. --XoravaX (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There are 2 problems with the old definition "countries that plan to abolish conscription within 3 years". The first problem is that if no timeframe is given for the abolishment, we do not know if it should be reflected on the map. For example the president of Ukraine, Poroshenko, has plans to abolish conscription[11], but no time for abolishment is given. Poroshenko has a little over 3 years left of his presidential tenure, but it is now unclear if we should color Ukraine orange or red, since we don't know when the change is going to happen. It might also happen on his second tenure, if he gets re-elected. The second problem is that the planner is not mentioned. If the opposition or a single party is planning to abolish conscription, it is not going happen very likely. But if the plan is published by the government, the abolishment is more likely to happen. For these reasons I would keep the orange definition as "Plan to abolish conscription by the current government". --Roopeluhtala (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined) Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

conversation redirection

Dear wiki-fellows, I would like to inform you that this Wikimedia Commons file also has a conversation page here. Given that people from different countries will most propably have access to the universal file, I give a redirection there, so as to avoid parallel conversations, and everyone from here will also get informed the same time about new content. I was not aware of the present page till now either..

P.S. It is not binding, anyone can still write wherever he/she thinks its easier for him/her Gomoloko (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Austria

Austria should be red. 73% of Austrian males are fit for service, and are thus conscripted, with approximately 45% subsequently choosing alternative service as conscientious objectors. Functionally, it is very different from countries like Norway or Denmark, for which purple seems to have been created, where an unwillingness to join the armed forces is generally sufficient to not be conscripted.

Haiti has no standing army

Haiti should be green Samalou (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)