Talk:Warrior

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

British Warriors?

Am i the only person who has noticed a large presence of American infantry batallions, and nothing British? Do we deserve nothing? Come on.....Redcoats? Nelson? The SAS? Something, at least.

Cleanup

I think ill start a cleanup for this section. It needs more references and content, as well as new organization. BreadBuddy (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defining warrior communities

The current list seems to lack a coherent definition of what a "warrior community" is. For example, is it a select group within a wider society focussed on martial pursuits? Or are we looking for a big social group with a martial focus? Or even an entire society in which martial prowess is elevated to a high level? Apply any of these and the list can be edited and gaps identified. Monstrelet (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list continues to expand as a random collection of people who once carried weapons. Nobody interested in improvement? Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Hi I was reading the history section and I think there are issues with the third paragraph

"In contrast to the belief of the caste and clan based warrior who saw war as a place to attain valor and glory, warfare was a practical matter that could change the course of history. History always showed that men of lower orders who, provided that they were practically organized and equipped, almost always outfought warrior elites through an individualistic and humble approach to war. This was the approach of the Roman legions who had only the incentive of promotion, as well as a strict level of discipline. When Europe's standing armies of the 17th and 18th centuries developed, discipline was at the core of their training. Officers had the role of transforming men that they viewed as lower class to become reliable fighting men."

This basically contains a lot of editorializing and dubious or unclear points as well as presenting war as something that occurred only in the past. Since the need to equip commoners has been cited already most of this paragraph is in fact redundant. imo what is actually needed instead is a note explaining how in european and other societies the warrior as a separate caste disappeared ie. due to the end of feudalism.

2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1CA4:EB3B:546B:9C01 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women as warriors section

Attempts to delete this section seem premature. It is badly cited and some statements do need stronger evidence, though obvious POV edits seem to be absent. Just deleting after a few days of citation tagging and no real attempt to discuss what improvements are needed seems a rush, especially as a lot of the content here has sat in the article for a long time. Recommend a period to allow improvement before deletion. Monstrelet (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section was horribly cited. It had two sources and one of those sources seems unreliable. I see some very slanted text that indicates POV edits. Lots of incorrect, badly cited, or POV content stays on lots of articles for a long time on WP. That does not mean it cannot be removed. We do not need a long period of discussion for a section that is so terribly written and cited. Uncited material can be challenged and/or removed. Plus, having a long section about the subject matter would also be undue because the article itself is small and women warriors are less common throughout history. Even the section itself admits that much. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section was good either but then the article is a bit of a dog's breakfast anyway. I do think, though, that some mention that not all warriors were men is a useful statement to make, and to give examples such as the Scythian grave finds which are well documented, or for that matter the Scandinavian archaeological evidence (not well represented in the article). The Dahomey case, which only made it in as a picture, is also well documented. However, I don't have the time or inclination to rewrite it. If we don't get a volunteer shortly, I fear the delete will be the obvious thing to do but I think we should ask for improvement first. I shall put a shout out on MILHIST not as a dispute but a request for editorial assistance. If nothing comes through, go with the delete. P.S. sorry about the Mongol warrior - that was carelessness on my part. Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost a week since that shout went out to MILHIST and nothing has come through. And quite frankly nothing will come through. I am deleting the section now. The requests that are sent out to MILHIST are answered within a day or two, or not answered at all. For the record of anyone look at this talk page: As I stated above, the section is terrible, badly cited, likely undue (especially considering the size of the article), and reeks of POV and OR. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be a paragraph on women warriors in the article. Sources speaking of them exist. They aren't a myth. Let's not be sexist. I added the link to the Women warriors in literature and culture page to the see also section. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tracing back, what I should have said is that they aren't total mythology. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be a section. The previous section was poor - not sufficiently encyclopaedic and badly cited. It was opened up for improvement and nobody improved it, so it suffered bold deletion. If you wish to create a new section, I can offer some assistance e.g. on archaeological aspects.Monstrelet (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guy said, "It has been almost a week since that shout went out to MILHIST and nothing has come through. And quite frankly nothing will come through. I am deleting the section now." That's him saying we shouldn't have a section. Something would come through if actual effort was put in. Christ. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one came forward. No previous editor who had contributed to that section came forward. But, if you wish to put something together, then please do. It is a gap in the article. Or take the issue to other places and make a call for editors to address the issue if you don't feel up to tackling it yourself. Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put the shout out to MILHIST and no one wanted to tackle the issue. The previous section was terrible. Having a separate section for women as warriors would be quite undue considering the small size of this article. The fact that some women warrior communities are included in the list below is enough. Besides there already exists a separate article for women as warriors, which seems to be a bit of a mess as well. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, did I suggest "a separate section for women as warriors"? No. But a paragraph is warranted. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]