Talk:Military globalization

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

International relations Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military globalization is the increase of range within which military power can be projected through the progress of military organization and technology and the increasing strategic interrelation first of regional systems and later of the global system.[citation needed]

Citation does not exist. I composed the opening section basing on the opening section of Globalization. Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the term military globalisation does not exist in reliable sources. So does that mean this entire article is a mass of Synth and OR?

talk) 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually the term does exist, but not in big number of texts, and the definitions differ from what the wikipedian writes; like here. The very first version or our article was already original essay. I guess one needs to scrap this text and start all over, this time starting from sources which directly discuss MILGLO ad define the term.

talk) 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

When an article's lead section is based entirely on Original Research it's inevitable that the rest of the article will be fatally flawed. It's a well written article but it needs to be completely overhauled to give it legitimacy. Basing an article on a false premise makes the article a waste of hard work and misleads readers. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a non-invented definition from here. The article now seems to be based on a wonderful premise. Max.

After the lede of the article was changed, I removed the rest of the article as WP:SYNTH. Whoever endeavors the work on the article please keep in mind that the information must be added only from the sources which explicitly discuss the concept of

I endorse Staszek's version. The prior version was on my own personal "to nuke and restart" list for exactly those reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub but once it was a well written article (see page history). Just as we marked the first anniversary of the vandal demolishion of that fine article, its expanded version was published by another publisher.^[1] Good works are like energy—they do not disappear; they just change form. The initial article was almost completely deleted because it was original research. Now, with the first book devoted completely and explicitely to the subject, it is no longer original research. But now I cannot restore the article due to the Conflict of Interest—I cannot cite myself. Paradox, isn’t it?--Maxaxax (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]