File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg

Some countries without conscription

hi these countries have not conscription: from asia:

• 1- Afghanistan. 2- Irag. 3- Yemen.

from Africa:

• 4-Tanzania 5-Ghana 6-Benin

from America:

• 7-Peru -

and these countries have no enforced conscription, although the law allow this but not enforced.

• 1- Ethiopia(Africa) 2-Uruguay(America) 3- Chile(America) 4-Bolivia

for seeing refrence go to the: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html.

I do not Know how i Correct it, please correct it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.3.6 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! I confirmed from CIA that Iraq, Tanzania, Ghana and Peru have no conscription; they are blue now. However, Afghanistan still seems to have, and I'm not sure enough about Yemen and the "theoretically no conscription" countries to change them blue. Mysid (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay doesn't have conscription since before 1998, according to the RTBA report. —Nightstallion (?) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now. Mysid (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chile

Should be red, 2013 class called see http://www.dgmn.cl/ "GOBIERNO LLAMA LOS JÓVENES A PRESENTARSE AL PROCESO DE SELECCIÓN DEL EJÉRCITO ANTE DÉFICIT DE VOLUNTARIEDAD PARA EL SERVICIO MILITAR." -> GOVERNMENT CALLS YOUTH TO BE PRESENTED TO ARMY SELECTION PROCESS WILLINGNESS TO DEFICIT FOR THE MILITARY.

In Chile ca. 150 000 men[1] reach military age annually, but only around ~10 000 are actually drafted.[2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopeluhtala (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Bolivia

Military service in Bolivia is voluntary, and only when the annual number falls short, compulsory recruitement is effected [Cia]. Even so, after 2017 (Law No. 954) only men are required to enlist, so the quota (<40% of the annual age group) is covered [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The forcibly conscripted must be a small number.

P.S. Some more facts: [8] [9] [10]. Another user has mentioned above that there is no enforced conscription. Gomoloko (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Greenland error

Listing Greenland as demilitarized is incorrect. It is likely that conscription isn't used in either the Faroe Islands or Greenland, but the island isn't demilitarized. The Sirius Patrol upholds Danish sovereignty in North East Greenland, the U.S. operates Thule Air Base, and the Royal Danish Navy operates the Grønnedal Naval Base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.16.138 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How should we depict it, then – gray, perhaps? Mysid (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden is about to abolish conscription

http://www.thelocal.se/9318/20071206/ Jacob Lundberg (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At least during peace time, yes. Is there anything more recent about this? Mysid (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[4] Headline means "Draft [to be] abolished in peactime". Jacob Lundberg (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tackar! Sweden is now orange. Mysid (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden did end conscription, but conscription laws are still present. They are simply not being currently applied. Doesn't that mean Sweden should also be dark blue?

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4rnplikt_i_Sverige "Värnplikt i Sverige infördes 1901 och är tillsammans med civilplikt och allmän tjänsteplikt en del av totalförsvarsplikten. Den 16 juni 2009 fattades beslut om att låta värnplikten i Sverige vila i fredstid, vilket trädde i kraft den 1 juli 2010.[1] Även om värnplikten delvis inte tillämpas så är den idag inte avskaffad.[2] Enligt regeringsbeslut i december 2014 kan krigsplacerade värnpliktiga inkallas till repetitionsutbildning, något som också tillämpats. [3][4]"

(translation of bolded sentence: Even if conscription partly is not applied, it is today not abolished.) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.247.12.251 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." Compulsory enlistment means that people are forced to join the military. If a country stops forcing people to enlist, there is no enforced conscription, and that means a country should be presented in light blue color on the map. What the law says is irrelevant.

So since Sweden no longer uses compulsion to enlist people, it should be presented in light blue color. The dark purple is actually an obsolete color choice, but I added it because some Wikipedia editors cannot understand the definition of conscription. They think that conscription is defined by law, not by practice. The dark purple countries should actually be presented in light blue, but since some editors keep changing them to red, the dark purple is a compromise, which has stopped the edit wars. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sweden has decided to reintroduce conscription effectively immediately, with first recruits by summer 2017. Out of 100 000 people, 13 000 will be called in, out of those 4 000 will be selected. If you are one of those 4 000 then it's punishable by prison to refuse. The amount is expected to be increased. Please change Sweden to Purple. --Foorack (talk) 23:36, 06 October 2017 (CEST)

Sweden has brought back conscription

I've now changed Sweden to purple since Sweden on March 2nd 2017 brought back conscription. During the first 2 years only 4000 out of ~95000 18-year-olds will enlist, that includes both genders. 4000 is less than 20% out of 95000 which makes it purple. Article on the government webite --Hampuswe (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We should not change the map until the first conscripts enter service. Current plans to introduce conscription in January of 2018 can still be canceled.[5] --Roopeluhtala (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a colour for countries which have plans for reinstituting conscription? Perhaps yellow? --XoravaX 10:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In case of Sweden, conscription will not actually be reinstated. Their system will look a lot like the one in Norway, where only motivated are selected to the service. According to the defence ministry spokeswoman[6]: "The authorities choose the ones who are willing, interested and motivated." If there are countries, which are actually planning to introduce conscription, the new color could be added. Currently, I doubt there are such countries. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true that conscrpition will not be reinstated in the meaning that a majority of the potential conscripts will be drafted. In fact, in the begining only 4 % will and the Swedish Armed Forces has stated that primarily motivated people will be drafted. Nevertheless, whose who are drafted will be enforced to go through their military service and refusal of doing so will be punished with imprisonment. Also, everyone turning 18 years old will be obliged to go through the drafting process that seeks to chose whom will ulitmately be chosen and refusal of doing so will also be punished. Thus, conscprition has been reinstated according to the definition of the word (according to Wiktionary: "involuntary labor, especially military service, demanded by some established authority") as the fulfillment of military service ultimately is not vouluntary, though some consideration is given to willingness when chosing whom that will be drafted. As the new regulations on conscription now has come into force as of January 1, 2018 i will now change the colour of Sweden into purple. Rasmus 28 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To User:Rasmus 28: You are wrong. Conscription does not mean, that you cannot quit the service without punishment after you have signed up voluntarily. For example in United States there is no conscription, but leaving the service after joining voluntarily without permission is still a punishable crime. In Sweden people are not drafted against their will, instead all are volunteers. This means Sweden does not have conscription by definition. Everyone in Sweden is not obliged to go through the drafting process, instead only those who show interest in the preliminary questionnaire are invited to the drafting event[7], thus Sweden should remain blue. --88.114.138.150 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, there should be a colour for countries planning to introduce conscription. It is even more important than a colour for countries planning to abolish conscription. And it is very important if we wait "until the first conscripts enter service" before changing colour of a country which has already decided ultimately to introduce conscription. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Germany

Germany should be turned orange. [8] --138.246.7.7 09:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks like mere speculation, nowhere do they state that a date has been set. Mysid (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[9] There is a political debate over conscription and it seems that that the side opposing conscription is gaining the upper hand. The situation is much clearer than in other "orange countries". In my opinion scraping conscription in Germany is just a matter of time once this dabate has started, of course it may take 1, 3 or 5 years or longer but it will happen. Mieciu K (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's now official – turn Germany orange, please. —Nightstallion (?) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Germany should be orange, not blue. —Nightstallion (?) 17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, because the official date will be 1 July 2011. Therefore Germany sould be orange until July, and then blue. source --Wnme (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think thats incorrect, neither blue nor orange. If Germany abolished its Wehrpflichtgesetz (conscription law) it would abolish conscription. More unlikely, if Germany discarded Article 12a of its Grundgesetz it would eliminate conscription. This both not happened and is not so likely to happen, Mieciu K's comment in this direction is not debated at the moment and is not fully supported by SPD and CDU/CSU. What happened is a change in the Wehrpflichtgesetz (WehrRÄndG 2010) and a conscription stop, the laws are still in effect. Germany is a country with conscription but no conscripts. So orange or blue maybe reflect the situation that something is different to the "red" countries, but the description "Countries that plan to abolish conscription [within 3 years]" or "countries that don't adopt conscription" is incorrect. Maybe the description for orange needs a an addition to reflect the special situation correctly: "... or adjourn conscription temporarily". --Martin H. (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, Germany already should be blue: http://www.euronews.net/2011/07/01/military-service-ends-in-germany/ (but I am not sure whether this information is quite correct). --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Germany has to be blue, definetely, if you compare the color codes. Conscription is temporarily adjourned. It's e.g. like in France, and France is colored blue on the map. Please change! Thanks. --H.A. (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia etc.

Ethiopia atleast should be blue, as conscription does not exist: [10]. Also it seems Madagascar should be blue according to CIA [11], 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)

According to CIA limited information since the start of the civil war in 2014 in Yemen, so i paint grey (as Libya and Sahrawi Arab Republic - Western Sahara) Gomoloko (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I did all these changes. I also coloured China PRC blue, because while conscription exists in law, draft has never been done because of the number of volunteers. If USA is blue, so should be China. --Sankari (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there an overlap (ec) between the previous version? As Germany was already blue coloured, but it's not more in the latest version. Wnme (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on. The 1,33 M version I uploaded definitely has Germany blue, I can see it from my desktop. For some reason, it doesn't update the image file in Commons. It also didn't update it when I reverted it earlier. There's a database bug. --Sankari (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping this was just database lag, as it didn't update when I changed Germany to blue. Not sure what is going on...give it a day or so more, hopefully things will clean up. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a bug. In the preview map, Germany is coloured orange, in the map shown in the article, Germany is coloured blue (this is correct). --H.A. (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, when you click the image larger it works. The PNG versions in articles simply won't work (yet). Note to self: Make Burkina Faso blue in the next version, check the status of Indonesia and the Philippines from sources. --91.154.83.44 11:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Denmark vs China

Reading the part about China here, I had to think about Denmark: there is conscription by law, but de facto now only volunteers are taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.199.166 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, sort of

"Conscription suspended

01. jun. 2010 09.14

Each year, Danish Defence needs 6,500 new recruits. For the first time in history, Danish Defence will not need to conscribe new recruits into the army, since a sufficient number have volunteered.

Therefore, the Danish Defence has decided not to hold its conscription lottery and army medicals among 18-year old men. In reality, this means that conscription has been suspended, writes daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten."

But was this just an exception or does Denmark have enough volunteers. What about 2011, will draft take place? --91.154.83.44 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, just because it is suspended last year, doesn't mean it won't come into play later. Until conscription is taken out of law in a country, nothing should be changed on this map. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Huntster wrote: "Until conscription is taken out of law in a country, nothing should be changed on this map." This is not a map of countries which have conscription written in their law, but a map of countries which enforce conscription. I hope you see the difference. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As there is now the purple colour for countries that have conscription by law, the PRC should be purple as well, due to the Military Service Law of the People's Republic of China --XoravaX 20:21, 15 December 2016 (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 16:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 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.[12] There are no recent cases of imprisoned total objectors. There has been one case in 2014 where a person voluntarily signed up but objected afterwards, which resulted in 14 days of home arrest.[13] 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) 03:42, 7 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 (which is enforced) for total objection - we cannot go saying that a penalty is not a penalty or a law is not "really" enforced when it in fact is. 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 22:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 22:57, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

Proof is required that at least one danish man has been punished with imprisonment in recent years. Otherwise conscription only exists in the law, and not in practice. If the act of desertion (objecting after signing up voluntarily) leads to only 14 days of home arrest, objecting to being ordered to sign up cannot be punished harder. Act of desertion is usually punished also in countries which do not have a conscription system. Punishing a deserter very mildly proves that the punishment mentioned in værnepligtsloven does not apply. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is that so? You are basically implying that a punishment is not a punishment: the penalty in case was 14 day "ubetinget" detention (which equates to house arrest), which is a viable penalty under Militærnægterloven, which states a penalty of up to one year (it can be 14 days too) or a fine. The 14 day house arrest is a valid penalty for total objection under the 2006 Militærnægterloven. But to prevent this to go into an edit war, I'm going to ask a WP:Third opionion on this. --XoravaX 10:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not know if the 14 days was given because of desertion[14] or objection. After you sign up voluntarily and do not show up, it can be also desertion. In many countries which have ended conscription, desertion is still a punishable crime. This case cannot be used to support the claim that Denmark has conscription, for that we would need proof of danish man imprisoned because of objecting. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we would need a case showing that a total objector would not be punished (in this case the person appparently then was a deserter, which is punishable through værnepligtsloven, not militærnægterloven, of which the §6 sets the punishment for total objection). In the absence of such cases, the default is that total objection results in the punishment written in the law.

Furhtermore, the third opinion response (actually third and fourth opinion) in Wikipedia was to keep Denmark red. So I'll therefore re-revert it to red. --XoravaX 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The map legend has changed, old description of purple color was ambiguous. Denmark should be purple according to the new definition. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Venezuela

Mapa de Venezuela

En el mapa se muestra a Venezuela sin la demarcacion de la Guayana Esequiba como Zona en Reclamacion, ¿Se podrá hacer el cambio?

The map shows the demarcation of Venezuela without Guayana Essequiba as Reclamation Zone, Will it be possible to make the switch?

colour

All men are obliged to register for military service, though mandatory recruitment is forbidden by the Constitution. - blue

I reverted Venezuela back to red, because there are sanctions for people that don't register for conscription (fines and much more), and not responding when called is considered an evasion of service https://www.wri-irg.org/en/Venezuela-Law In practice most citizens are required to "volunteer" in some way, either joining the army or the National Militia or other forces https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Bolivarian_Armed_Forces_of_Venezuela The doctrine is “A Civil-Military Alliance” where every capable person should assist in the defence and prosperity of the country https://www.cmi.no/publications/5808-a-civil-military-alliance Gomoloko (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela is purple according to this source Gomoloko (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine ended conscription in October 2013

In June the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence announced that conscription is going to be cancelled. Source (russian): http://top.rbc.ru/society/03/06/2013/860408.shtml

Ukraine ended conscription -> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/10/03/Ukraine-to-end-military-conscription-after-autumn-call-ups/UPI-95521380772920/

Conscription in Ukraine was ended (for a short period) only for usual army, but not for the Internal Troops. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine about to reintroduce conscription

Ukraine wants to reintroduce conscription Source. --Dharion (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Conscription in Ukraine was never ended completely and was returned to previous level shortly after the conflict with Russia began in 2014. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

----

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 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

According to president Poroshenko Ukraine has already stopped using conscripts in the war zone. Poroshenko also said in November 2016 that: "The armed forces of Ukraine must be fully comprised of volunteers and contract soldier who are well-prepared, motivated, trained and fully supplied."http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2016/Nov-02/379319-ukraine-removes-last-conscripts-from-war-zone.ashx]. I would keep Ukraine orange. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Poroshenko however makes no claim that it will be abolished within 3 years (abolishment within 3 years is the definition of the orange colour). 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.--XoravaX 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Although Crimea is recognised as Ukrainian territory by United Nations resolution 68/262, there is a forced conscription imposed by occupants from Russian Federation. This fact ought to be emphasised in the text or to serve as a need of a new category introduced with a distinct colour, denoting forced conscription against the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unas964 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine is conscripting all men ages 18-60 against the ongoing Russian invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayTyper (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC) It needs to be updated. HighwayTyper (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello HighwayTyper, conscription laws and goverments plans/announcements on military service are one thing, and mobilization due to war or invasion is a different thing. This map concerns the first case. For example, there are many countries in war or civil conflict (Yemen, Libya, etc etc) that can not be depicted here, but better in other maps like: ongoing armed conflicts Gomoloko (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

But during a war conscription of young men (which is not mobilization) also goes on and may increase. Do we have information that now in Ukraine conscription is so limited that the country should not be red in this map? D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Singapore

A red dot should be seen for Singapore. Singapore has conscription.

Yellow countries

I propose to think over carefully about yellow colour on this map. Namely:

1. What does it mean exactly?

2. Is its meaning described properly?

3. Is its meaning interesting enough to be denoted by a separate colour?

4. Is the set of yellow countries correct here?

(Recently this colour denoted that conscription was to be abolished soon. Now somebody thought up something more complicated.) --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe, I mean the description of the colour meaning in the English Wikipedia. I am not familiar with interface of Wikipedia files. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have difficulties with the 3 year limit since it is very arbitrary. It is probably to abolish that category and just mark countries after their current status, not a possible future status. --Hansbaer (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that yellow colour should be simply replaced with red one. I hope, somebody, who can do it, will do it. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Austria

User:Roopeluhtala removed Austria from the list, as no objectors have been punished since 1998. However, this doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that there is no conscription. The law still exists and is de facto enforced, even if it's punishment isn't. --Shikeishu (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no punishment at all then the law exists only de jure, not de facto. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but conscription is in full-swing in Austria, objectors have to do an alternative service which is 3 months longer. If you simply do not accept this, you will be put in prison for the time of your service and this has happened in recent years. (User from Austria- 22 January 2015, 17:07UTC)

Austria has normal conscription, which is also being punished if not made. Please change the map! --80.108.153.176 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

From discussions in different places of Wikipedia and Wikimedia I conclude that, probably, conscription in Austria does exist in practice. The sources of the contrary information are very old and a conscription referendum in Austria has been held long after dates of these sources. If the conscription was absent in practice in 1993 or in 2008, why should we think that it remains absent even after the referendum (held in 2013)? If there is no new information then we should simply take into attention the law and we should write that conscription does exist. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Austria has been changed back to red. Still, it would be important to find sources confirming that objectors are really punished. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

According to data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (1985-2017) hosted in the World Bank excel file , the total army size over the last ten years is 20.000-25.000 people, including professional soldiers. This information is confirmed by the Globalfirepower site (22.500 in 2019). Also, the Defence Ministry numbers talk about 14,000 soldiers (plus 8,000 civilan employees and 25,000 militia soldiers). The annual age group is about 100.000, with many choosing alternative service. Only men are conscripted, so the criteria for purple colour are covered (less than 40%), even than in fact conscripts are less than 20%.

Confirmation: Almost half of the force consists of professionals already since 2008 (16.000 out of 35.000 back then). Another source says that in 2018 the army consisted of 18.000 draftees among others. Gomoloko (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is to be understood by conscription, but the article itself defines it as a form of national service, 'most often' military. 74% of males are fit for service in Austria, and are thus either recruited into the army or declare themselves conscientious objectors, after which they still fulfill an alternative national service. Only males are conscripted, so the 74% easily exceeds the 40% threshold defined by the purple colouring. Even then, if only army conscripts are counted (which, based on my understanding on the article, is not the definition that should be used), the number is still floating around 40% of males and on the rise. The male age group is now under 50,000. Failing to appear for the medical inspection to determine fitness is punishable, men are forcibly brought to the inspection, and desertion during mandatory service is punished with prison time. I can't find a specific example of it occuring, but failure to appear altogether can be fined with up to 7000€, and the fact that 74% are conscripted should be clear enough in indicating that conscription is active, even if there is no mandatory minimum fine for failure to appear. Austria should be red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.221.234 (talk • contribs)

Without verifying the numbers used for the "confirmation", the calculation is not correct. If there are 16.000 conscripts out of 35.000 active soldiers, you have have to double the numbers per year, because the service lasts 6 months, so there are 2 x 16.000 conscripts, that means 32.000 per year. Every fit male is drafted in Austria for military or alternative service. Austria has to be red. 11:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Vermehrt--Vermehrt (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Vermehrt I can't understand what your syllogism about the conscript numbers could be. You are making arbitrary assumptions and conduct original research. The anonymous Austian IP above has made a thorough analysis and put some more sources that also confirm these numbers. The only difference is that the source I used talks about a different number of people reaching military age annually. The austrian sources can probably be more accurate I have no objection to that. But not every fit male is drafted in the army. Out of those found fit for service (74% of the annual group, so 1/4 of the called does not serve), almost half take the alternative service. The numbers you talk about are propably annual. Please read again all the above sources and more, for example goverment data older but to the point. Also, by inspecting the data, there is no clear tension for military or civildienst rise over the last years, indeed a constant rise of the unfit for service ratio. Another interesting fact is that there are no certain examples of abstentionist punished before entering the service. If I understand this source right, they must be about 5.000 per year (10% of the annual group) - not a small number Gomoloko (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Gomoloko Thank you for this interesting discussion. Probably there are differences in the understanding of conscription, which for sure can be due to different judicial conceptions. As it is defined on Wikipedia, conscription is "is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." So there is no matter, if people are enlisted to military or to the alternative service (or in many countries to several other compulsory formations like civil defense forces or police as well), they cannot refuse to do so, they will be drafted anyway. The purple countries, just refer to countries having a selective conscription, where not every fit conscript is drafted to a service, like in Sweden, Denmark or Norway . The figures on your source here show, that 37% of the male draftees are conscripts in the military, but together with the alternative service draftees the total percentage is about 66%, so about two-thirds of all males are drafted, therefore red is the correct colour. If you say, that absentees or deserters are not punished, please have a look at Austrian statistics agency at "Kapitel 2: Verurteilungsstatistik - Sämtliche Delikte" you will see, that there have been about 24 convictions for absenteeism and desertion in 2016. --Vermehrt (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 11:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not what I say, but other users and sites. Thank you for this nice conversation. I provide the exact link to the above source. For example in year 2016 D1- Militärstrafgesetz there are 23 records concerning the military law alltogether (not only for conscripts) and some subcategories. Yet it would be better if we had news coverage on certain cases and penalties. Gomoloko (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction: looking in the 2018 file, i found Wehrgesetz-Umgehung der Wehrpflicht (=Evasion of conscription). This is the right category. It contains 1 or 2 records, none in 2017, 3 in 2016, 1 or 2 in 2015, and so on.. More info is needed on the subject Gomoloko (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No conscription/no enforced conscription distinction

I'm no expert on the subject but as an onlooker I find it very misleading to group countries with purely professional armies together with countries that actively do draft. I suggest there be suspended/not suspended distinction for clarity. I'm not talking about a hypothetical status, just more informative (which is the purpose of the map after all). Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree

Russia

Does anybody know, what are Russia´s plans to abolish the conscription?--213.216.208.243 06:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In 2017 Putin announced gradual abolishement of compulsory military service. In 2015 professional soldiers outnumbered conscripts for the first time. Gomoloko (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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. Similar figures of enlistment present themselves each year (I managed to find only 2013 figures), so Russia is also purple. --XoravaX 20:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Good work, thanks for the information! --Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why Russia is not colored red on this map? It has compulsory service Kamolan (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Less than 20% of the whole age group enter the service in Russia. This means that it is not compulsory for the majority of the russian people. Thus, Russia is colored purple. Roopeluhtala (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Which exactly age group do you mean? In Russia we have army as (almost) mandatory for men from 18 to 26 years old. The222anonim (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

(update) according to cia, only 1/3 of the army consisted of conscripts in 2021. Around 260.000 are conscripted each year from a 1.300.000-1.500.000 group (globalfirepower and demographic charts) reaching military age anually. About 20% Gomoloko (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Norway

Norway does have and enforce conscription (for both genders as of Jan 1, 2015). I don't know how to edit the map, but it should be corrected. See here for enforcement details: http://www.ebco-beoc.org/norway (I served a few years ago, so I know what I'm talking about).

Please change Norway back to blue, Norway does not have conscription. Nobody is forced to serve, so the service is voluntary: http://www.dw.de/norways-military-conscription-becomes-gender-neutral/a-17995882 "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance." Norwegian civil service was reported to have ended in 2011: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541 and objectors have not been punished since 2011: http://www.bladet.no/nyheter/article5811750.ece

"The Norwegian government announced on 1 July 2011 that substitute service for conscientious objectors will end later this year. According to Minister of Justice Knut Storberget, the reform will mean that conscientious objectors to military service will in the future no longer be called up for a substitute service, but will simply be exempted from military service."

Norway does have conscription. Yes, there are few who are punished. Why? Because few oppose the conscription. Objectors have been punished after 2011:

• August 2014: Man - age 30 - Did not meet for repetition exercise. Later he did not meet for military discipline. Sentenced to imprisonment [15]
• August 2014: Man - in his 20's - Did not meet for "first time service" (All Norwegians can be called for 19 months of service). He did apply to not service, but was rejected. Sentenced to imprisonment. [16]
• The "Generaladvokat" (General aturney) who is the Prosecution Authority for prosecutions involving military personnel say there are about 50-100 cases of people not meeting for service when they are called. [17]
• The yearly report of the Generaladvokat states that in 2014, there were 9 sentences for conscripts not meeting for duty. [18]

The Norwegian constitution §119 makes every citizen responsible to protect the country.

The law of conscription (Lov om verneplikt) [19] governs the use of citizens in military service.

• §3 defines everyone from the age of 19 to 44 as available conscripts.
• §4 gives the King right to also use citizens from age 18 in a war situation
• §7 commands every citizen to do the tasks The Armed Forces put upon them.
• §§9-19 regulates the use of citizens for military purposes in peace time.
• §20 defines everyone in the country, who is not "obviously useless for military service", as "utskrivningspliktig" from 1st. January the year they become 18. This implies being put in the Armed Forces "register of potential conscripts". To avoid this, you have to leave the country, or be obviously useless.
• §27 requires every "utskrivningspliktig" as defined in §20 to deliver a written declaration about themselves to The Armed Forces.

The "Militær Straffelov" from 1902 governs the use of punishment of all military personnel.

• §4 defines conscripts as military personnel.
• §34 puts the punishment for not serving at up to 2 years of imprisonment.

The reform in 2011 simply means that if there is no use of you, you wont be used. If you are called to serve, you are still required to do so. There are ~60'000 potential conscripts every year. There are only 15'000 soldiers in Norway. Obviously you can't use every single one. Since only 8-10 thousand are needed, it would be foolish to conscribe those who have no motivation. Since only those who want to serve, serve, there are few cases of objectors, and thus there are few punishments. Nevertheless Norway does have conscription, and there is not really any political talk about changing that. People who do not want to server are still being conscribed, but there are few of them.

To say Norway has no conscription is utterly foolish. The entire military strategy of Norway, when it comes to personnel, is to use conscripts. It has been that way in one form or another for the last 1000 years, and it still applies.

MarlinMr (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:MarlinMr wrote: "Since only those who want to serve, serve, there are few cases of objectors, and thus there are few punishments." If only those who want to serve, serve, how can you call it conscription? In United Kingdom (and many other countries) it is a crime to leave the military after you have voluntarily signed up. With your logic we should change U.K. to red color. According to statistics thousands of incidents of absence without official leave (A.W.O.L.) are reported in U.K. every year, and sentences are harsh, typically months of detention. [20] If only motivated people are recruited, it means conscription is not enforced. Both Norway and U.K. recruit only motivated soldiers, and neither of them enforce conscription. Conscription is however enforced in countries like Finland and South Korea, where every man has to serve regardless of motivation.

Also the punishment for the norwegian soldier, who did not meet first time service, was only suspended sentence of 14 days.[21] That is a very mild sentence compared to for example in Finland, where objectors get 173 days of unconditional sentence.[22] If finnish objectors only got 14 days of suspended service, it would de facto mean that conscription is not enforced in Finland. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that these are different countries? Maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years. 21 years. In the US you can get hundreds or death penalty. Does that mean that Norway de facto is not punishing anyone for anything? No. Just because there are few cases of objection, it does not mean that it is not enforced. 0.16% of the population available for conscription are punished for objecting. 0.0009% of the population who can be punished for murder are punished. Is this because Norway does not enforce laws regarding murder? Or is it because murder simply does not happen that often? Here are the facts:

• The law say that Norway has conscription.
• Objectors are punished.
• The Armed Forces operate on the principle of conscription [23].
• Norway has based its military on conscription for 1000 years.

--MarlinMr (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:MarlinMr wrote: "The law say that Norway has conscription." - Nobody is denying this, but the map is about if conscription is really enforced in practice, not if it is mentioned in the law. "Objectors are punished." - Only if they are motivated and basically volunteered to join in the drafting interview, like in United Kingdom, which does not enforce conscription. "The Armed Forces operate on the principle of conscription" - Again, this map is about if conscription is enforced or not. Currently it is not enforced. I am reverting the map. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Roopeluhtala, stop reverting, period. The image description only says "enforced conscription". Regardless of whether you think Norway's enforcement is lax or not, it is enforced, and is written into their law. Until and unless that changes, this graphic should reflect that. It is not up to you to define criteria. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. I am not arguing whether conscription is mentioned in the law, just that it is not enforced, as mentioned here: [24] "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance." --Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately such arguments don't count for User:Roopeluhtala who has made up his own definition of what constitutes conscription and enforces it by all means. He thinks that service is voluntarily if nobody is thrown into jail regularly for not doing it. --Hansbaer (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Are there any sources that say that Turkey will abolish conscription before 2020?

I'm also interested, I was surprised to see Turkey marked out in orange on this map; there is no source cited, and I've certainly never heard anything along those lines even proposed let alone decided. If no source can be found, could we change Turkey to red please? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.89.131.57 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I transfer user:Emrekaratas words since I merged the 2 files : "The government of Turkey has introduced a new conscription system, thus conscription is still obligatory (https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2019/gundem/son-dakika-yeni-askerlik-duzenlemesi-hakkinda-flas-gelisme-3563144/). Also, there are no plans to abolish the conscription system." Gomoloko (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Turkey new Military Service Law

Signed on 25/6/2019 : 7179 Sayılı Kanun – Askeralma Kanunu , here is the official source. Gomoloko (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Transferred conversation:

Hello.

Conscription is still compulsory in Turkey. It has not been abolished, only the period of conscription has been reduced and has undergone further reforms/changes.

Sources:

• http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-parliament-ratifies-new-military-service-law-144475

• https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/06/14/more-cash-greater-efficiency-under-new-conscription-system

Yours sincerely, Maphobbyist (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! With your permission I'm transferring this comment to the corresponding conversation (at the file page) Gomoloko (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland

Switzerland does NOT intend to end conscription, pls put it back to red!

I second this. Switzerland should be red not orange. I can't seem to upload a new version of the file because "You cannot overwrite this file."--Goodfaith2015 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lithuania

Please change Lithuania back to blue, all recruits have been volunteers, so there is no forced conscription. [25]

purple

Lithuania reinstated conscription in 2015 initially for 5 years, after it had scrapped it in 2008. The country relies mostly on professionals, and the number of draftees is low in general as a supplement, for example 3.800 out of 31.000 in 2019. This is 12%, so Lithuania is purple Gomoloko (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please revert the map? Some people do not understand the word enforced.

In the map the blue countries have status: "No enforced conscription".

This should include countries like Norway and Lithuania, where conscription is written in the law, but it is not enforced.

Article in Deutsche Welle[26] clearly states that norwegian women or men are not forced to serve: "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance."

Also all of the recent Lithuanian recruits have been volunteers, so conscription is not enforced in Lithuania either, although it is written in the law [27].

If people are not forced to serve, conscription is not enforced. Thus Norway and Lithuania should be blue.

Can someone please revert the map? The "04:48, 9 December 2015" -version of the map is correct, both Norway and Lithuania are colored blue in that version (currently they are red).

Interestingly only the English version appears to make the requirement of "enforced". None of the other language versions makes this distinction. The Dutch version adds "(in some cases restricted)", but all others which I could check did not make any further specifications. "Enforced" was added here without any further explanation. So, I removed the "enforced" to make it consistent with the description of other languages. That makes it quite sensible to place Norway and Lithuania in the red column. --Hansbaer (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This creates a big problem. Whether conscription is enforced or not is very relevant. If conscription is only mentioned in the law, but has no meaning in real life, it is not at all relevant. Map should reflect what happens in practice. I suggest we add the word enforced to english and other language versions. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that a representation of what is current practice can hardly be done in 4 very rough categories as it is done in the map. Adding the enforced leaves not only the problem that so many languages are difficult to update. It also leaves countries with a weak enforcement policy outside the grid. Norway does not fit in either "enforced" or "no conscription". The problem is that a country like Norway only has the freedom to depend solely on volunteers as long as there are enough of them. But essentially that is true even for countries without conscription - Germany or Sweden probably would reintroduce conscription if the armed forces could not be sustained on volunteers. There are many color shades here, making it really difficult to make a consistent characterization. Furthermore, the "3 years to abolish"-category is nonsense IMHO. If it were up to me I would probably use these categories: Conscription (conscripts currently serving), Conscription (only volunteers serving), No conscription or permanently suspended, No armed forces, Status unknown. Because if we get into the argument what constitutes "enforced" and "punishment" we really get into nitpicking arguments with no satisfactory solutions. The philosophical argument where "enforced" starts is an endless one, and it is obvious that it least you and me do not agree on this. Judging from all the edit wars, others won't either. --Hansbaer (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "3 years to abolish"-category is nonsense. However category "Conscription (only volunteers serving)" is contradictory, since conscription by definition means involuntary servitude. I would propose the following 4 categories:

- Conscription (involuntary conscripts currently serving)

- No conscription, permanently suspended conscription or only/mostly volunteers serving

- No armed forces

- Status unknown --Roopeluhtala (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Then we still get back to central dispute which is like a red line through all the discussions: you're trying to push your view of what constitutes conscription. I would argue that conscription is already in place if there is a law providing for it and if any soldiers serve without the right to leave. The "mostly volunteers" variant additionally is very fuzzy - it would already be fulfilled when 49% are involuntary conscripts. It makes a diffuse situation not clearer, and you will still attract hefty disputes from the respective countries (and I would not argue with them). Until around 2011, both Germany and Sweden had undisputedly conscription. However, in both countries the standards where so watered down that it was no problem to get out if you wanted to. Under the same laws and institutions but slight changes in drafting orders, conscription in Germany ten years earlier was very real with virtually everybody being drafted who did not drop dead at the medical exam. This constituted conscription by any relevant standard, while Norway, which apparently simply applies a more convenient selection process for conscripts, would in your standards not be a conscription country. It is very very arbitrary to find a standard here. We would embark on an impossible task to categorize 100+ countries with a standard we draw up ourselves, with a very fuzzy basis for our decisions. Furthermore, this violates Wikipedia standards. The Wikipedia way to do it would be to find the standard scientific literature applies to define if there is conscription or not and to apply that. Making up our own standard is not within the scope of that. We are getting nowhere with this. It would probably be best to go the safe road with these categories: Conscription de jure (application practices vary), No conscription or conscription suspended, No armed forces. The details of conscription practice is up to the details of the respective articles anyway. --Hansbaer (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a place to find relevant information. Again, if conscription is only mentioned in the law, but has no meaning in real life, it is not at all relevant. De jure legislation that is not enforced has no real life significance. Wikipedia should not contain irrelevant information, although relevant information is harder to find or more fuzzy to evaluate.

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service.". The definition does not say anything about what is written in the law. We have to stick to the original definition. If enlistment is voluntary and not compulsory, there is no conscription no matter what the law says. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you should read up on what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. It represents established and (ideally) scientifically backed facts. It does not make up arbitrary definitions, and it does not judge by itself. And it especially does not use itself as source. You're still trying to use sources which state one thing to back the opposite by applying your own interpretation. You will have difficulties to find reputable sources that claim that e.g. Norway does not have conscription. --Hansbaer (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service.". There is no disagreement that in Lithuania all of the recent recruits were volunteers. So there is no compulsory enlistment in Lithuania, thus there is no conscription. Yet the map shows red color because of you. You are the one sabotaging Wikipedia, not me. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of conscription -discussion has been started in dispute resolution

Please comment, so we can find a consensus on the definition of conscription: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Definition_of_conscription_and_the_conscription_map

"There has been a disagreement on whether Norway and Lithuania have conscription[28], and what color these countries should have in Wikimedia's Conscription map of the world [29].

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." [30] Compulsory enlistment means that people are forced to join the military. However according to this source[31] norwegian people are not forced to join: "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance". Also in Lithuania all recent recruits have been volunteers [32], so people are not forced to join there either.

Since Norway or Lithiuania do not force people to join the army, there is no compulsory enlistment and thus, Norway and Lithuania do not have conscription. These countries should be colored blue on the map, and not red, as they are now colored. I have tried to change the map multiple times, but have been reported for vandalism. Other people tend to think a country has conscription, if compulsory enlistment is possible according to the law.

We should use the correct definition of conscription when coloring the map and Wikipedia should also contain relevant information. It is not very relevant if the law makes it possible to force people to join the army. What is relevant, is if people are actually forced to join." --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Jordan

Jordan doesn't have conscription, abolished in 1992. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Jordan is blue now Gomoloko (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ROC (Taiwan)

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 it should be red. --XoravaX 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Defence Minister of Taiwan has confirmed that compulsory service will end in 2018, so Taiwan should be orange.[33] --Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Map legend changed for purple color - now defined more clearly

Old description of purple was "Conscription by law, but not in practice.", but this is too ambiguous. I changed the description to "Conscription by law, but less than 20% of the whole age group are compelled to enlist". The new description is better since it defines the criteria more clearly.

We have had a debate whether Denmark should be colored purple or red. In Denmark only a small minority of men (3%) are compelled to do service, and 97% of the men enlist voluntarily. Since the danish system is mostly a volunteer-based, it is informative to present Denmark in a different color than countries where a majority of the men are compelled to do the service, like South Korea or Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopeluhtala (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is still pretty vague. The US and PRC have both laws on conscription, but neither of the countries have active draft systems. I understand that it's not an active draft, but it is still there by law, so the governments can start drafting without the need to change laws. It is clearly supposed to be a wartime conscription system, but these countries do really fill that definition of the purple colour.--XoravaX 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If we are to keep the purple colour, it should be defined as "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. 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. --XoravaX 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoravaX (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Estonia should be purple

In Estonia 3307 recruits started military service in 2016[34], and 40% of these were volunteers. Since estonian age cohort size for conscription aged youths is ca. 12000[35], only (3307*0,6) / 12000 = 16,2% of recruits are compelled to enlist. Because this number is below 20%, Estonia should be colored purple on the map. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Brazil should be purple

According to source[36] 95% of recruits are volunteers. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thailand should be purple

In Thailand ca. 100 000 recruits started military service in 2016[37], and over 50% of these were volunteers. Since thai age cohort size for conscription aged youths is ca. 900 000[38], less than (100 000*0,5) / 900 000 = 5,6% of recruits are compelled to enlist. Because this number is below 20%, Thailand should be colored purple on the map. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Belarus should be purple

Belarus conscripts ca. 35% of men who reach conscription age[39]. That is approximately 17,5% of the total population, so Belarus should be purple. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, according to the source given, as of 2003(?) there were 30.000 conscripts (in an 83.000 army) with 87.000 men reaching conscription age annully, equals 34% Gomoloko (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(2023)According to cia 40% of the 48.000 army (IISS, globalfirepower) consists of conscripts, that is about 20.000, equal to the annual target of the army =10.000 in each of two callups (easter and autumn).a. According to globalfirepower etc, around 100.000 reach military age annuallly. There is also great draft dodging, which led Lucasenko to official meetings and amendments.bGomoloko (talk)

Mexico should be purple

According to War Resister's International every year about 975,000 men reach conscription age. There are 60,000 conscripts in the armed forces, so conscription rate is well below 20%. Selection is done by a ballot.[40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopeluhtala (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia changed back to red

Conscription was restored in Georgia.[41] --Roopeluhtala (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Georgia purple

Georgia has been trying for years to move towards a professional army and stop compulsory recruitement; in June 2016 this happened https://eurasianet.org/georgia-announces-end-military-conscription In 2017 conscription was reintroduced, but in a more supportive role to the professional army http://agenda.ge/en/news/2017/263 The conscripts are only 10% of the army size according to officials https://jamestown.org/program/georgian-authorities-reinstate-military-conscription/ , so we' re talking about 10% of 20,000 (GFP) https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=georgia or 26,000 (IISS) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.totl.p1 total army size. The men reaching military age annually is comparatively more than 100,000 in a country of about 4,000,000

p.s. another source http://agenda.ge/en/news/2016/2188 (georgian this time) talks about 37.000 in 2017, yet again the conscripts should be less than 3,700 (10% of the total army size). Proof for this claim http://georgiatoday.ge/news/8708/Georgian-Military-Modernization%3A-Two-Steps-Forward%2C-One-Step-Back

Gomoloko (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Orange color definition has been changed

Orange countries were previously defined as plan to abolish conscription within 3 years. Problem is that often the government does not give exact date for the change, and if no date is given, it is unclear whether we should color the country orange or not. 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 in my opinion 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. If you speak other languages, please update both orange and purple definitions in your own language. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this, the new definition is inaccurate and unclear, as the governments themselves often can't even agree what should be done. The previous definition was clear and required the country to show initiative and definite plans for abolishment. This'll go for a WP:3O for sure.--XoravaX 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The United States of America

Since the colour purple includes the countries which have conscription by law without any need for an active draft system, the US should be purple as well, due to the US Military Selective Service Act.--XoravaX 20:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, blue means no one is compelled to enlist, purple means less than 20% are compelled to enlist. In USA no one is compelled to enlist, so it should remain blue. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ecuador

Conscription has been compulsory in Ecuador since 2009. Check w:Military_service#Ecuador--Freddy eduardo (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador no compulsory military service

According to https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ecuador/personnel.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html https://www.wri-irg.org/en/story/2007/ecuador-military-service-law-unconstitutional and many others ecuador is painted blue. Please correct me if something is different.

--Gomoloko (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Orange

As the discussion "Yellow countries" already mentioned, orange is not a useful color. Countries planning to abolish conscription don't necessarily do this. They are still countries with conscription. To avoid ongoing reverts, the color should be removed. --2001:16B8:3177:100:8424:DB89:745C:F3DD 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is useful for example when there is a voted law or official government announcement with a future date to get into force.Gomoloko (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

moldova turns to orange?

according to cia factbook and news like this: https://www.moldova.org/en/moldova-defense-ministry-conscription-will-gradually-abolished-starting-autumn/

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/09/21/moldova-to-dismiss-compulsory-military-service-by-2021-09-21-2018/

--Gomoloko (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

purple: "are compelled to enlist" -> "are recruited"

I changed the description of purple color to "Active draft system, but less than 20% of the whole age group are recruited", as this is more accurate than "...compelled to enlist". For example in Sweden and Norway no one is compelled to enlist, but some are drafted voluntarily, so it was a bit misleading to keep them in the purple category. However the new category is more suitable for them. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.250.231.201 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Morocco

Conscritpion returned to Morocco in February 2019

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/rabat%E2%80%99s-challenging-conscription-strategy-43862

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2019/2/8/morocco-officially-reinstates-conscription

Gomoloko (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

10.000 were recruited in 2019, and 15.000 is the target for 2020 12 3, with 600.000 reaching military age anually 4. Also, conscription for women has become voluntary Gomoloko (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Haiti + El Salvador

Haiti had no army for 20 years, reintroduced one in 2017 (voluntary) , green -> blue

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40576545

https://www.voanews.com/a/haiti-revived-military/4117695.html

El Salvador has selective conscription system (less than 20% of population reaching military age annually) , blue -> purple

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centam/sv-personnel.htm

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=el-salvador

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html

Gomoloko (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tunisia

In Tunisia few people summoned for military service actually attend, over the last years

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180213-tunisia-31000-summoned-only-506-respond-to-call-for-military-service/

https://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/61704

Gomoloko (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

New map !

Hello all, i used file BlankMap-World-Compact.svg (version 2018) and painted everything according to the old Conscription_map_of_the_world + changed Cabo Verde to red (according to CIA)

Benefits:

1. When you open the .svg file in the browser and put the mouse over a country, its name appears!

2. Updated countries outlines

3. Some people had painted countries the wrong way (for example using the -fill with colour- tool), leaving colour residues and errors

Gomoloko (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe, Cabo Verde

Both countries were painted purple according to these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3%ADncipe

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/stp-fastp.htm

Gomoloko (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sao Tome has an army of 300 people and Cabo Verde around 1,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Verdean_Armed_Forces Total Population: Sao Tome and Principe 200,000 - Cabo Verde 500,000

Gomoloko (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sao Tome has a tiny army, moreover CIA says conscription reportedly not enforced - blue Gomoloko (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Mozambique

Mozambique has compulsory selective military service for both men and women. Its military strength is 10.000 people, in a country of 27.000.000. About 1/3 actually even registers for selection, out of those reaching military age annually.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=mozambique

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/mz-personnel.htm

https://clubofmozambique.com/news/ministry-of-defence-launches-compulsory-military-service-programme-tomorrow/

https://allafrica.com/stories/201703150503.html

Gomoloko (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Chad, Niger, Mali, Cote d'Ivoire

According to Globalfirepower for 2019 https://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp

	ACTIVE PERSONNEL	REACHING MILITARY AGE ANNUALLY	TOTAL POPULATION
Chad	30,500	340,327	15,833,116
Niger	5,300	374,498	19,866,231
Mali	10,000	318,331	18,429,893
Ivory Coast	25,500	525,269	26,260,582

There are some other sources if somebody makes a quick search, for example:

Chad: Cia says "..while provisions for military service have not been repealed, they have never been fully implemented (2015)" https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html

Niger: Wikipedia also talks about 5.200 soldiers in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_Armed_Forces

Mali: Reuters says there was no conscription between 1991 and 2015, with the army being weak and losing easy battles even after https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mali-military/mali-imposes-national-military-service-amid-separatist-tensions-idUSKBN0EG29V20140605

In Cote d'Ivoire, Cia says conscription is not enforced. The goverment tries to demobilize ex-rebels who participate in the army and are in dispute with https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/iv-personnel.htm

Gomoloko (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Togo, Equatorial Guinea

According to Cia, Togo has an all volunteer force since 2017 and in Equatorial Guinea conscription is a rare practice https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html

Equiatorial Guinea low conscription is confirmed here as well: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/gq-fage.htm

Gomoloko (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea blue, according to the above Gomoloko (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Guatemala

In practice, most of the force is volunteer, however, a selective draft system is employed (Cia) . Also, the active personnel is 20,000 people out of 360,000 reaching military age annually (Globalforepower)

Gomoloko (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Senegal

Senegal has voluntary + selective conscription (Cia) According to several sources, its army consists of about 10.000-17.000 (less than 15%) soldiers over the years https://military-medicine.com/almanac/108-senegal-republic-of.html https://www.defenceweb.co.za/security/african-militaries/senegalese-armed-forces/?catid=119%3Aafrican-militaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Senegal https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/sn-intro.htm The country population is about 15.000.000, with around 100.000-150.000 or more men reaching military age annually

Gomoloko (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Uzbekistan

According to Globalfirepower:

	ACTIVE PERSONNEL	REACHING MILITARY AGE ANNUALLY	TOTAL POPULATION
Uzbekistan	50,000	601,495	30,023,709

Conscription is far less than 20%. Also, Uzbekistan: "..is moving toward a professional military, but conscription in some form will continue; the military cannot accommodate everyone who wishes to enlist.." according to CIA (2019)

Gomoloko (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cambodia

Cambodia introduced conscription in 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6083882.stm http://www.cncc.gov.kh/userfiles/image/download/Laws-A22%20Law%20on%20Compulsory%20Military%20Service-En.pdf

Gomoloko (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The army size according to different sources is about 120.000 over the last years (without reservists and paramilitary forces), but many thousands of them have been iconic numbers (30.000-40.000 unfit for service, elder, ghost soldiers and officers simply getting paid). After 2006, male citizens are required to register for selection, but due to financial and other problems few were called untill 2011 (in a period of five years only 7.000 total new soldiers were conscripted/ 300.000 reaching military age anually). It is unclear in what level this system is implemented lately, since there has also been a reduction and rearrangement in the armed forces branches sizes, and civilian desertion is mentioned. The initial target was the unemployed people control. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gomoloko (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

2008 Ministry of Defence: “We will conscript only a small number of youths, we don’t know how many people exactly” “We are not conscripting youths forcibly. There are many conditions” source. On the other hand, Cambodia has a large armed force for its size, almost 175.000-200.000 for a 15.000.000 country (if militia 30.000-45.000 and paramilitary forces 60.000-70.000 are added), though the real active force is about 70.000-80.000 Gomoloko (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

cia:conscription only selectively enforced since 1993, Military balance 2023:conscript liability 18 months service authorised but not implemented since 1993 Gomoloko (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan

	ACTIVE PERSONNEL	REACHING MILITARY AGE ANNUALLY	AVAILABLE MANPOWER	TOTAL POPULATION
Tajikistan	9,000	152,082	4,095,924	8,604,882
Kyrgyzstan	11,000	110,108	3,029,935	5,849,296

Both countries have very small armies of hardly 10.000 soldiers over the past years https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/central-asian-military-capabilities/, especially when compared to the available manpower (and their population) https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=tajikistan https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=kyrgyzstan

Gomoloko (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another important source for army sizes and informations

IISS - World Bank

I provide another trusted source for army size evolution over the years since 1985, “The Military Balance” book from the ‘International Institute for Strategic Studies’. It contains almost every country https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.totl.p1 (caution: it shows the TOTAL army size, not active personnel nor annual conscripts)

Here is also an archived version ('cause things happen..) http://web.archive.org/web/20191107135827/http://web.archive.org/screenshot/https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.TOTL.P1 [screenshot - zoom in from left] Gomoloko (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

European Defence Agency

Another trusted source for european countries army sizes and expenditures https://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/defence-data-portal/ Gomoloko (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

EUISS

Also exists the European Union Institute for Security Studies for information and reports Gomoloko (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

NATO

For year 2019, and so on.. Gomoloko (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Benin, Guinea-Bissau

Both countries have voluntary + selective conscription. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/333.html According to ‘International Institute for Strategic Studies’, Guinea-Bissau over the last 30 years has a total army of 8,000-->4,000 people (population 2,000,000) and Benin has 9,500-->4,500 (population more than 10,000,000)

The proportion of people actually conscripted should be less than 20% for sure

Most of Guinea-Bissau army consists of officers https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/gnb-personnel.htm (and some more information about Benin army https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/bn-personnel.htm )

Gomoloko (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Paraguay

Many sources prove that less than 20% are conscripted (also there are many conscientious objectors) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Gomoloko (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Somalia

The new Constitution of Somalia (2012) does not mention anything about compulsory recruitement. On the contrary, in chapter 14 (Peace and Security), the article 127 refers to professionalism and also says that "Every Somali citizen is entitled to be considered for positions in the national armed forces at all levels, without discrimination.."

The peacekeeping force of AMISOM operates in the region as well, amid the country's efforts to build a new professional army (SNA) [1]

The small army size (20.000 out of 10.000.000) [2] [3] and other sources [2] also confirm that there is no official conscription.

Gomoloko (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sudan

Sudan has both voluntary and compulsory military service (CIA). The army consists of 100.000-125.000 soldiers, with more than 1.000.000 people reaching military age annually (men & women are recruited). [1] [2] The percentage is 10% (including volunteers and professionals), so the proportion is even lower.

p.s. Sudan total population is more than 40.000.000

(There is also a United Nations + African Union peacekeeping force at the area of Darfur, and paramilitary Popular Defence Forces )

Gomoloko (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Mongolia

Mongolia has both compulsory and voluntary military service, with the ability to become a contract soldier after 1 year (source). Mongolians are mostly a nomadic people state and their army is oriented to a small emergency assistive and peacekeeping diplomatic force (sourcesource). The total size is 10.000-18.000 (sourcesource) over the years (incl. professionals), with 60.000-70.000 reaching military age anually (sourcesourcesource). Only men are conscripted, so the ratio for purple colour is covered Gomoloko (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In case of war, militia of about 13.000 Border Forces + 4.000 internal troops (paramilitary personnel) are activated [year 2009]. There is also the National Emergency Management Agency, as an alternative(?) service. (sourcesource) Gomoloko (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The Military Balance 2020: conscripts = 3300/8900 (Army) + 4700/6000 (Border Guard) + 800/1200 (Internal Security Troops) https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tmib20/current Gomoloko (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Algeria

Algerian Army has 75.000 conscripts out of 130.000 total soldiers (source: The Military Balance 2019-page 332 /and 2020-page 340). There are 680.000 people reaching military age anually c, so the quota <20% (only men) is covered. Also: "There is an ongoing attempt to make the armed forces more professional, which was reflected in the reduction of conscription liability from 18 to 12 months in 2014". According to another source "...The national forces do not have the capacity to enlist everyone in every age cohort. The age cohorts are large, and the armed forces are one of the few opportunities young people have for paid work and careers. In addition, Algeria has professionalised its military forces, and therefore the most suitable candidates are chosen..." More info: 1 2 3 Gomoloko (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Guinea

According to Cia and The military balance 2023, there is (selective) conscription. Army size is ~10.000 in a country of ~13.000.000 (less than 20% of annual group for sure) - purple. Gomoloko (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tanzania

Military Balance 2023: Conscript liability, three months basic military training combined with social service
CIA: selective conscription for 2 years of public service
Globalfirepower: reaching military age annually 574.000 active personnel 26.000, total military personnel 67.000
Purple Gomoloko (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is Crimea colored as if it were part of Russia?

Crimea is internationally recognised as belonging to Ukraine. --Minilammas (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Map that this is based on appears to group Crimea with Russia. Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)