Talk:Children in the military

Requested move 23 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's some support for a move but not to any particular title, even nom seems to have withdrawn the RM. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Children in the military → Military use of children – Revert the move of November 2017 requested by Gaioa. The reason is that this article covers more than "Children in the military" it also covers the exploitation of children by the military as explained in the lead sentence "Children may be trained and used for combat, assigned to support roles such as porters or messengers, or used for tactical advantage as human shields or for political advantage in propaganda." with more details in the body of the text. PBS (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• An example is the TV display of Saddam Hussein handling (literally) of the British boy Stuart Lockwood in 1990 that had the complete opposite of the effect he had hoped to create. -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose by mover - I changed the title to make it broader and to signify that the topic of the article is not only exploitation. I do not in any way deny that children have been repeatedly enslaved and mistreated by armed forces across the world, but that makes no difference in significance to the current article title. The current title signifies "presence of children in military contexts, regardless of status", whilst the original title signified "slavery and exploitation of children for military applications, and nothing more".
  The current article title is broader and the previous was less accurate, whereas OP seems to think the opposite. But the world "in" do not in any way deny exploitation. Gaioa (t,c,l) 05:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  How is the title "in the military" broader? How does the current title cover issues such as Lockwood? You write that the title "Military use of children" covers "slavery and exploitation of children for military applications, and nothing more". How do you come to that conclusion and how does the title "Children in the military" differs from that? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons Gaioa has given, I think the rationale for the current title is clearer, and it also sits well with another page, 'Women in the military'.Fugitivedave (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Fugitivedave Unlike women, who may or may not be in the military through the decisions made by the government of a state, there is an international prohibition against using children under the age of 15 in the military. How do you think that children in the military is comparable with "women in the military"? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The prohibition is of children under the age 16 (among signatories of the OPAC treaty, which is most of the world now). To my mind, I don't think the prohibition on some children joining the military has a bearing on whether 'Children in the military' is a good title or not. I think there's a case for 'Military use of children' too, but I think the current title is the most neutral of the suggestions I've seen so far, and reflects the article content well, so I still don't think it should be changed. Fugitivedave (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral. The "in the military" phrasing is poor, implying a specific military (the reader is apt to assume that of their own nation). It's just poor communication, and poor conceptualization. Outside of a particular jurisdiction, there is no such thing as "the" military. However, the proposed title doesn't seem to cover the scope of the article's content, not quite.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Children rioters during Hong Kong independence movement

Should this article mention children fighters enlisted by the Hong Kong independence movement?

In my opinion, no. These are child protesters, who may commit acts of violence but are not in the military or a military organisation. Fugitivedave (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Child Soldiers

If you are interested in child soldiers you should read the book called A Child Soldier by Emmanuel Jal. It has some very useful information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.6.228 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bias, palestine

In the first paragraph on the Palestine section, a quote is used where palestintianian children who threw stones and molotov cocktails at IDF soldiers during the first intifada are misrepresented as child-soliders. the first intifada was not a war, but an uprising in response to decades of IDF military occupation of the palestinian terrories, and the second-class citizenship status of palestinians living in israel. The children were not soldiers, but rather part of the greater population who participated in the uprising (which, had far greater casualities on the palestinian side). The quote is therefore not realiable, and an appropriate human rights organization should instead be used as a source.

Theoisnotalive (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

دمت گرم اخوی 178.131.168.223 (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"Child solider" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Child solider has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Child solider until a consensus is reached. Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)