![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why are FARC and ELN cited as examples of paramilitary groups? The PIRA is also described as such. But never are Hamas, Fatah, Hizbullah or any other Muslim or Arab group described as a paramilitary organization. Sometimes you hear "militants", "extremists", "armed wing of..." etc. but never paramilitary, is this because it may provid some legitimacy or allow more room for simpathy or what? -- Omar 11:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the writers of the article just forgot to mention those groups. If it means that much to you, add the names yourself. This is a wiki. You can do that. 212.25.69.29 21:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of FARC and ELN as paramilitary groups. In Colombian and U.S. political rhetoric, US and Colombian press and academic literature, the term "paramilitaries" is always used to refer to the AUC and similar right-wing groups. The FARC and ELN are the "guerrillas". The paramilitaries (or "paras" as they are known in Colombia) were originally private security forces employed by large landholders to guarantee security for their persons and property, because the Army and national police has never been able to cover the whole country. The guerrillas were formed by the Communist Party, independent radicals, and peasant unions (the "peasants' republics" of the 1940s and 50s were the first). There is no confusion about who are the 'paras' and who are the guerrillas in Colombia, or among journalists and academics in the United States who study the subject. I will edit this article over the weekend unless someone posts a convincing counter-argument here. glasperlenspiel 04:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Isomorphic, the fact that, in the Colombian context, the word paramilitary has acquired a localized meaning (and the "paras" are also referred as "right-wing insurgents", "death squads" or plainly "illegal self-defense forces"), doesn't change the fact that, from an global perspective, the term has a much wider application, one which includes the FARC, ELN, AUC and similar organizations as paramilitary groups, as per the current wikipedia article. Juancarlos2004 18:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just restored the Hitler Youth as a "non-combat" paramilitary. The Hitler Youth fought because Germany was desperate for soldiers, and they were available and disciplined. They were not created to fight. Certainly they were created to train future soldiers, but the fact that Hitler Youth fought as such was an accident. Isomorphic 14:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Sample of paramilitary groups working to destabilize a democratic governments in support of a Communist revolution ? Ericd 1 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
Paramilitaries are by defition made up of civilians. Also, I don't think the reference to terrorism was needed. A paramilitary group might engage in terrorism, but that's not what makes them paramilitary, nor are terrorist groups necessarilly (or even usually) organized as paramilitaries. Isomorphic 06:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
There are Boy Scout rifle and shotgun merit badges. I suppose the first aid training could be useful in a military context, but so could the knot-tying skills... pretty much anything related to surival outside of cities would have some application in the field, but it's quite a stretch to describe that as 'paramilitary training'. It's not like the Boy Scouts learn how to clear a room or secure a building. If having a rank structure is what makes a group 'paramilitary', the Salvation Army qualifies. -rosignol
Is there a consensus for the view that a paramilitary organisation must be
Using the term paramilitary to qualify law enforcement organizations similar to the French Gendarmerie is in contradiction with the very definition of the word as stated in the article : according to that definition, a paramilitary organization is made up of civilians behaving like a military organization. The members of the Gendarmerie are not civilians : they are 100% military, with many officers actually being trained in the same school as young Army officiers, and only opting for Gendarmerie service at the end of their basic curriculum. Their statutes and career profiles are identical to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. They are subject to the same restrictions in public speaking and unionizing as other members of the military (unlike the civilian police). Like the military, they have to serve abroad if necessary, and often do. I suppose the same is true for other forces such as the Carabinieri. Thus, a Gendarmerie are military personnel acting in a civilian capacity (law enforcement), not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.44.43 ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of this group as the dictionary definition of a paramilitary suggests they operate with professional (regular) forces which this category does not. As such I have taken a so called 'revoluationary paramilitary' group (the Irish republican Army) as a textbook example of a group motivated by both political change (in this case as with most of the other groups it was the sepratist independence of a region from its governing region) and also by ideological change, in this case the catholic majority Irish in dispute with the Northern Protestant inhabitants.
A few definitions to back this up first:
Paramilitary Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.
Terrorism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now the article suggests that the Irish republican army (hereby referred to as the IRA) were in some way a military organization tasked with the defense or military operations of the regions in which they operated (the British isles, mainly England and Northern Ireland)
That is not the case however; the term paramilitary is better applied to a mercenary group, which is less personally or politically biased in conflict than the IRA were. Whilst the media frequently refers to the IRA and other such groups as a paramilitary by definition they are not, this is a media and political rewording to make the group more publicly friendly in an attempt to speed up the peace process (the good Friday agreement) in that region, and as a whole with many of these groups to try and improve their public image as the term 'terrorist' has something of a stigma to it.
The IRA are considered a terrorist organization who have on several occasions been proven to use violent force to instigate political and ideological change in the region against the will of the majority and democratic governing body of that region.
Also, note the dictionary definition of a paramilitary – it suggest that a paramilitary, also (a militia if you will) generally operate with regular forces in the region. The IRA did not work with either the Irish Army or the British Army within whose regional control they operated, I am also unaware of the exactinner organization of the IRA but I am certain they were not organized in a standard military fashion but instead had a simple set up of a commander and a group of followers. I am unaware of the majority of the IRA ever having a structured rank system geared towards military organization, and any such organization of this and most other such groups was instead geared towards whomever held the most political control.
The dictioary definition of paramilitary does not extend to this group and as seen in the above text cannot apply to any other so called 'revolutionary group' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogikren ( talk • contribs) 20:38 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[Please sign your contibutions by clicking on the signature squiggle just to the right of the "No W" icon abve.] -- Red King 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, because the word 'paramilitary' is so often used in the media in relation to Republican/Loyalist activity in Northern Ireland, in whatever form it takes, it would better to clarify in the article why, for example, the UVF is paramilitary but the IRA is not. According to the definition as it is given in the article - most of the initialled-armed groups in Northern Ireland sound like they fit the bill. But I would like anyone to expand on the point about "especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops" before EXCLUDING either group. Until then I think we should define all the groups as paramilitary for as long as they remain illegal 'command structured' organisations. Also, a clarification between splinter IRA groups (Continuity, Real, Provisional, etc.) in particular is needed, because some are disarmed and some are still armed and active, while others are disarmed but still retain military command structures, which confuses matters Icanseeformilesandmiles 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Where are the black panthers in an article about paramilitary organizations. Granted, they weren't actually paramilitary but they dressed like it and could go under "Non-combat paramilitary organizations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
They're not there because they weren't paramilitary. Anyone can dress up like it. Whether they engage in paramilitary style operations is the key point.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
17:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
How can you make an article about paramilitarism and not include the paramilitary Serbian volunteers during the war with Bosnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight45 ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section on paramilitary as a euphemism. Even the section itself did not claim that any major media outlets use "paramilitary" this way; only that someone on Wikipedia recommends it. It's a misuse of the term, and as such only bears mention if it's widespread. The current article correctly states that the term is used in various politically charged and often contradictory ways. That's good enough. Isomorphic 01:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be some discussion about non combat military organizations. It sounds a little like a square circle. Some research into arguments for and against inclusion need to be presented. Mrdthree 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems understandable, but I would emphasize the point that a noncombat paramilitary group must have more than military resemblence, it must be a group organized to serve a military purpose, e.g. salvation army no, boy scouts no, freemasons no, Society for Creative Anachronism no, civil defense yes, civil war reenactorsno, star trek fan club members or their military wing, the starfleet marine corps no Mrdthree 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic if you want to put the salvation army up on the page as a paramilitary group more power to you. Mrdthree 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
They list that America has 52,000 paramilitary, who are they? Listed on Active Troops list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.25 ( talk) 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Militias would probably make up the largest number of that because there are militias in every state and there are even many militias for individual counties and towns — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHoustonKid ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost every police department has a paramilitary unit. (ie SWAT team) They wear military-style uniforms and body armor and carry automatic weapons. -- 74.76.100.144 ( talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
i know of a paramilitary group caled pm5, it operates in the eastern u.s. and i saw its myspace page where it stated that they were a paramilitary/militia group. my brother has seen them in action and they are not police or swat or any of that usmcsoldier27 4:56 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.10.228 ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
will somebody please make a page about pm5! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmcsoldier27 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is confusing, as is the article, but fortunately not as much. In my understanding, "paramilitary" has three defining characteristics. 1) they are not an actual military or military body (para=beside), 2) they are organized along military lines, 3) they perform military-like duties. The emphasis on "auxilliary" in the intro confuses this because it assumes a relationship with an actual military. Civilian police can be paramilitary based upon their organization, as in US departments (with ranks, such as "captain" and structure of the organization), mind you this doesn't include something like the FBI. British police arguably aren't paramilitary. Boy Scouts, the IRA, the Salvation Army, FARC, right-wing American militias, Canadian mounties, gendarmerie - are all paramilitary organizations, despite what they want you to think or how they self-identify. In Columbia, the "paras" are specifically on the right and are so designated based on being auxiliary to the state (and capital) - but that's a specific local usage of the term. But it seems to me that at some point, a revolutionary force becomes an actual military in a civil war situation where the authority of the state breaks down. Not all military functions are combat related or require the use of arms, and "law enforcement" really has nothing to do with it because that function could be performed by military or non-military personnel, and "terrorism" may or may not be conducted by paramilitaries, but definitely is not performed by an actual military (that'd be guerrilla warfare). "Civilian" or not doesn't help to clarify whether an organization is paramilitary. Bobanny 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
removed reference to Society for Creative Anachronism as a "paramilitary" group. Are you kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a ( talk • contribs) 21,42 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The term paramilitary is very imprecise. the article needs to give a definition and allow links to other pages which people may, or may not, consider paramilitary.
The article formerly discussed a long, boring, and above all arbitrary list of organisations that one or other editor thought maybe might be paramilitary. This is really irrelevant. A long arbitrary list of organisations some editors think fill a very simple but very ambiguous definition makes a very bad article.
It also made statements about paramilitaries which are subjective and depend entirely on your opinion of what is paramilitary, e.g. "In military terms, paramilitary security forces are typically light infantry. Effectively led, they can stand in defense, especially in urban or unfenced border areas, but are less capable of offensive action or sustained combat operations due to a lack of heavy weapons, professional military training, and effective logistics support." This is arbitrary, long, speculative, unsourced, and subjective.
Other arbitrary rubbish includes:
As a result of the overall abismal quality of the article explained above, I have replaced it with an appropriately short and clear article, explaining the simple definition and the ambiguity of its application in practice, with relevant links. Mesoso2 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mesos2 poor article. I would also like to add that I changed the article when it said the "adult part of the Civil Air Patrol" Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has a cadet program that is very much involved in saving lives and disaster relief and is organized in a military fashion. When on an Air Force assigned mission they are considered part of the Air Force auxillary just like threr Senior member (adult) counter parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.214 ( talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom, List of Paramilitary Organizations links to a list of terrorist organizations. While terrorist groups are paramilitary, paramilitary is not necessarily terrorist, so therefore this is inaccurate. -- Demonesque 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think all terrorists are paramilitary. I believe the term usually applies to groups organized like the military. That is they have uniforms, ranks, etc. A group can have a paramilitary wing and members who participate in attacks such as suicide bombings. This would explain why some Islamic groups aren't referred to as paramilitary. Rds865 ( talk) 06:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don’t think all terrorist can be paramilitary since paramilitary is characterized by rank and uniforms.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I was confused that Private army redirects to Paramilitary - shouldn't it redirect to Mercenary? At the very least there should be a link between the two... Corington ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the line: "Militarized preexisting government agencies, such as SWAT teams and Black Cats." because A) the Black Cats of India had already been mentioned and B) SWAT is not a 'government agency' in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Yes, SWAT is a police unit/section/division/branch, and police agencies are government agencies, but the line made it seem that SWAT was a stand-alone government organization, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sings-With-Spirits ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
SWAT is back in the list of paramilitary organizations as "The SWAT of the United States."
There is no such thing as the SWAT of the United States. There is no SWAT organization. SWAT is a designation of a specially trained unit of a civilian police force. Police forces are part of a state, city or county government, not part of some federal force. In other words, the SWAT unit would act only in the places where the police force it is attached to has jurisdiction and is under the command of the civilian police agency. For example, the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) SWAT team could only act in the places where the LAPD has jurisdiction. According to the wikipedia article, SWAT "is a commonly used proper name for law enforcement units, which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." The list might be accurate if it said something like "The SWAT units of Law Enforcement agencies in the United States," but they are not a separate "force." I will change that sentence in the article. The SWAT article does not have a cross-reference to Paramilitary. Ileanadu ( talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which is not regarded as having the same status".
I have to disagree with the first phrase IF in the list we go on including the Gendarmerie forces. The Carabinieri have military status and are 100% militaries as they are also the 4th Armed Force in Italy. The RCMP have an honorary military status.
We could change the phrase in this way:
"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which is not regarded as having the same status, however there are paramilitary bodies (mostly Gendarmery forces) that have a military status". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 ( talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Would not the Boy Scouts, for example, be considered a paramilitary group in a broad sense because they wear uniforms, have ranks, have a command hierarchy, and stress survival skills and patriotism? -- Skb8721 ( talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That was a nice one. It's the same description as the Hitler Youth. There are strange and exchangeable sentence like "Certainly they were created to train future soldiers, but the fact that (could be some indefinite future US-President) Youth fought as such was an accident". And here it's a stupid idea? Here are some terms for you: GDRs Free German Youth, Komsomol, Deutsches Jungvolk, some Pioneer Organisation of socialistic countries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_paramilitary_groups Which of them were Party associated militias or just "children brainwashing organisation"? In one way it's interesting, that Germany tried very far-right and far-left politics. I hope the Germans learned something from their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.145 ( talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 82.113.121.145 ( talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The UVF and UDA are cited, correctly, as examples of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, yet the IRA is not mentioned and repeated attempts to amend this have been erased. The IRA and its many 'splinter groups' (Continuity, Provisional Real IRA etc) are constatntly referred to in the media as paramilitary groups. In fact, the activity of such groups is monitored in Northern Ireland by the International Monitoring Commission (IMC) under the remit of 'assessing Paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland'. I think there should be a clearly stated reason in the article as to why the IRA are not defined as a paramilitary group, according to the article's definition. A lot of people will expect it otherwise and continually edit the article to include their definition.
I would confirm as a UK Resident that most people here if asked to give an example of a paramilitary organisation would very likely say "the IRA", and of asked to give an example of 2 or 3 would probably still mention the IRA, but possibly also the UVF, maybe the UDA or the various organisations which use the IRA name, (Continuity, Official, Republican, Provisional etc etc). What they would not mention as paramilitary organisations are the French Gendarmes, or Canadian Mounties.
I suppose it comes down to the concept of "paramilitary" as internationally understood perhaps has it's origins in the French and Spanish Speaking world, and not the English speaking world?
In the Commonwealth, North America and most other English speaking countries police forces tend not to be part of the military. (British police forces tend not to use the word "civilian" to refer to their employees who fulfill ancillary functions, e.g. administration, process the payroll, serve food at the cafeteria etc, they prefer to use the terms "police staff"- the rationale, everyone who works for the police in the UK are civilian.) This is different to the tradition in France, Spain or Italy, (or Germany up to 1945).
In the English speaking world the only examples I can think of of paramilitary police forces, (And then they are not part of the military in the way that the French Gendarmes are), are The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Texas Rangers, but both in polities which had influence from French and Spanish speaking cultures- or perhaps more precisely Civil (as opposed to Common) Law tradition???
Given the idea of paramilitary policing, (in the legal sense as understood by people in France, Spain or even Texas) is absent in the UK, it's not surprising that we think in different ways about it. Indeed if we used the terms "paramilitary policing", people in the UK would think about a man in a balacalva who goes and shoots people's knee caps out for selling drugs, whereas the French person would probably think in terms of the policeman who would help if someone had a car accident in a rural area. (How we can include organisations as diverse as the Provisional IRA and the French Gendarmes in the same article is not an easy task.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.123.244.33 ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a source illustrating the understanding of the term "paramilitary" in a UK context. www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-on-paramilitary-groups-in-northern-ireland Not sure it would count for wikipedia purposes, since perhaps it counts as a primary one, still it illustrates how the term is used and understood in the UK.
The article does need looking at, since the usage of the meaning of the term "paramilitary", perhaps the article should itself describe that discussion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.119.217 ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"A paramilitary is a militarised force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces". The Carabinieri are one of Italy's armed forces, the other ones being army, aviation and navy. I am therefore removing them from the list. If you don't agree, please discuss. I am keeping the Guardia di Finanza, but I think there should be some discussion about this. The Guardia di Finanza is said to be integral part of the Italian armed forces, but, at the same time, is a militarized police force, and depends from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. It is also not listed as one of Italy's armed forces. Also, while the Carabinieri often see active role in combat abroad (e.g. Afghanistan), I've never heard of Finanzieri doing anything outside of Italy. 87.79.46.98 ( talk) 21:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like paramilitary do not use conventional weapons such as ground tanks or navel warships. Perhaps we can mention that in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 03:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Should the Paris Fire Brigade be part of this article? They perform a civil function, but have some sort of military status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.119.217 ( talk) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paramilitary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
From the White League through the Minutemen (anti-Communist organization) to the modern groups such as Redneck Revolt and Oath Keepers. I'll add some sources tomorrow or at least by the end of the weekend. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
To editor Thewolfchild: I reviewed the image and they are not toys, but may be holding toy guns as seen in other images about the same organization because it's a drill not a real one. While I like the image you added, I was hoping it can be replaced with some other image of the same organization but not recycled from elsewhere. The current one is in use in so many other places.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)x2 - :::You're upset because I reverted you? And now you complain that "I didn't study the image carefully"...? You added an image that clearly doesn't belong. You reverted when you shouldn't have. You clearly didn't study the image or you would've seen they are a military unit, not a paramilitary unit. There is a difference here. And while we're at it, why did you just re-write the file name as the image caption? That needed to be changed anyway. Look, if you want to find and add your own image so badly, go ahead. But if there's a problem with it, expect that it will be addressed. - theWOLFchild 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I just think you should have clarified this in your first revert- The edit summary of my first revert stated: "those are US Army MPs, you need a paramilitary unit, like a police swat team, not a military unit like this one" - I think that's pretty clear. - theWOLFchild 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@
NadirAli: - a couple things, first; the image that was previously on this page, along with similar images on Commons, all from the same Flikr account, have all been removed from Wikimedia. They were determinded to be toys and a copyright vio as they are protected sculptures. Second, with that said, I see you
changed the image again today, with the edit summary: "should this do for now
". I'm not sure what you mean by that, nor do I understand why you changed images. The previous image, (seen below on the left) shows a perfect example of a paramilitary unit. An organized SWAT team, in uniform, with matching gear and helmets, all heavily armed with similar, military style rifles, and facing the camera. Yet you removed that, and added an image (seen below on the right) that shows the backs of group of seemingly random, disorganized guys all standing around in some sand lot, looking into woods and away from the camera. There is no matching uniforms and tactical gear, so what about this image says "paramilitary"...? This is a scene you could be found at hundreds, if thousands on outdoor civilian shooting ranges across the US, with everyday shooting enthusiast taking target practice.
This change does not appear to ne an improvement to the article, (quite the opposite actually) and considering you've indicated a possible temporary nature of your image being here, I'm wondering; why make the switch at all? - theWOLFchild 03:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
To editor Thewolfchild:, what are your thoughts on me using it with this image. It's not in use anywhere else and the individuals in it are training at a naval base, but are not navy personnel. They are civilian police SWAT being trained by the American navy.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 22:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for that clarity SnsjakMgsjam ( talk) 04:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why are FARC and ELN cited as examples of paramilitary groups? The PIRA is also described as such. But never are Hamas, Fatah, Hizbullah or any other Muslim or Arab group described as a paramilitary organization. Sometimes you hear "militants", "extremists", "armed wing of..." etc. but never paramilitary, is this because it may provid some legitimacy or allow more room for simpathy or what? -- Omar 11:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the writers of the article just forgot to mention those groups. If it means that much to you, add the names yourself. This is a wiki. You can do that. 212.25.69.29 21:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of FARC and ELN as paramilitary groups. In Colombian and U.S. political rhetoric, US and Colombian press and academic literature, the term "paramilitaries" is always used to refer to the AUC and similar right-wing groups. The FARC and ELN are the "guerrillas". The paramilitaries (or "paras" as they are known in Colombia) were originally private security forces employed by large landholders to guarantee security for their persons and property, because the Army and national police has never been able to cover the whole country. The guerrillas were formed by the Communist Party, independent radicals, and peasant unions (the "peasants' republics" of the 1940s and 50s were the first). There is no confusion about who are the 'paras' and who are the guerrillas in Colombia, or among journalists and academics in the United States who study the subject. I will edit this article over the weekend unless someone posts a convincing counter-argument here. glasperlenspiel 04:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Isomorphic, the fact that, in the Colombian context, the word paramilitary has acquired a localized meaning (and the "paras" are also referred as "right-wing insurgents", "death squads" or plainly "illegal self-defense forces"), doesn't change the fact that, from an global perspective, the term has a much wider application, one which includes the FARC, ELN, AUC and similar organizations as paramilitary groups, as per the current wikipedia article. Juancarlos2004 18:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just restored the Hitler Youth as a "non-combat" paramilitary. The Hitler Youth fought because Germany was desperate for soldiers, and they were available and disciplined. They were not created to fight. Certainly they were created to train future soldiers, but the fact that Hitler Youth fought as such was an accident. Isomorphic 14:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Sample of paramilitary groups working to destabilize a democratic governments in support of a Communist revolution ? Ericd 1 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
Paramilitaries are by defition made up of civilians. Also, I don't think the reference to terrorism was needed. A paramilitary group might engage in terrorism, but that's not what makes them paramilitary, nor are terrorist groups necessarilly (or even usually) organized as paramilitaries. Isomorphic 06:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
There are Boy Scout rifle and shotgun merit badges. I suppose the first aid training could be useful in a military context, but so could the knot-tying skills... pretty much anything related to surival outside of cities would have some application in the field, but it's quite a stretch to describe that as 'paramilitary training'. It's not like the Boy Scouts learn how to clear a room or secure a building. If having a rank structure is what makes a group 'paramilitary', the Salvation Army qualifies. -rosignol
Is there a consensus for the view that a paramilitary organisation must be
Using the term paramilitary to qualify law enforcement organizations similar to the French Gendarmerie is in contradiction with the very definition of the word as stated in the article : according to that definition, a paramilitary organization is made up of civilians behaving like a military organization. The members of the Gendarmerie are not civilians : they are 100% military, with many officers actually being trained in the same school as young Army officiers, and only opting for Gendarmerie service at the end of their basic curriculum. Their statutes and career profiles are identical to Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. They are subject to the same restrictions in public speaking and unionizing as other members of the military (unlike the civilian police). Like the military, they have to serve abroad if necessary, and often do. I suppose the same is true for other forces such as the Carabinieri. Thus, a Gendarmerie are military personnel acting in a civilian capacity (law enforcement), not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.44.43 ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of this group as the dictionary definition of a paramilitary suggests they operate with professional (regular) forces which this category does not. As such I have taken a so called 'revoluationary paramilitary' group (the Irish republican Army) as a textbook example of a group motivated by both political change (in this case as with most of the other groups it was the sepratist independence of a region from its governing region) and also by ideological change, in this case the catholic majority Irish in dispute with the Northern Protestant inhabitants.
A few definitions to back this up first:
Paramilitary Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.
Terrorism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now the article suggests that the Irish republican army (hereby referred to as the IRA) were in some way a military organization tasked with the defense or military operations of the regions in which they operated (the British isles, mainly England and Northern Ireland)
That is not the case however; the term paramilitary is better applied to a mercenary group, which is less personally or politically biased in conflict than the IRA were. Whilst the media frequently refers to the IRA and other such groups as a paramilitary by definition they are not, this is a media and political rewording to make the group more publicly friendly in an attempt to speed up the peace process (the good Friday agreement) in that region, and as a whole with many of these groups to try and improve their public image as the term 'terrorist' has something of a stigma to it.
The IRA are considered a terrorist organization who have on several occasions been proven to use violent force to instigate political and ideological change in the region against the will of the majority and democratic governing body of that region.
Also, note the dictionary definition of a paramilitary – it suggest that a paramilitary, also (a militia if you will) generally operate with regular forces in the region. The IRA did not work with either the Irish Army or the British Army within whose regional control they operated, I am also unaware of the exactinner organization of the IRA but I am certain they were not organized in a standard military fashion but instead had a simple set up of a commander and a group of followers. I am unaware of the majority of the IRA ever having a structured rank system geared towards military organization, and any such organization of this and most other such groups was instead geared towards whomever held the most political control.
The dictioary definition of paramilitary does not extend to this group and as seen in the above text cannot apply to any other so called 'revolutionary group' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogikren ( talk • contribs) 20:38 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[Please sign your contibutions by clicking on the signature squiggle just to the right of the "No W" icon abve.] -- Red King 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, because the word 'paramilitary' is so often used in the media in relation to Republican/Loyalist activity in Northern Ireland, in whatever form it takes, it would better to clarify in the article why, for example, the UVF is paramilitary but the IRA is not. According to the definition as it is given in the article - most of the initialled-armed groups in Northern Ireland sound like they fit the bill. But I would like anyone to expand on the point about "especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops" before EXCLUDING either group. Until then I think we should define all the groups as paramilitary for as long as they remain illegal 'command structured' organisations. Also, a clarification between splinter IRA groups (Continuity, Real, Provisional, etc.) in particular is needed, because some are disarmed and some are still armed and active, while others are disarmed but still retain military command structures, which confuses matters Icanseeformilesandmiles 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Where are the black panthers in an article about paramilitary organizations. Granted, they weren't actually paramilitary but they dressed like it and could go under "Non-combat paramilitary organizations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
They're not there because they weren't paramilitary. Anyone can dress up like it. Whether they engage in paramilitary style operations is the key point.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
17:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
How can you make an article about paramilitarism and not include the paramilitary Serbian volunteers during the war with Bosnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight45 ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section on paramilitary as a euphemism. Even the section itself did not claim that any major media outlets use "paramilitary" this way; only that someone on Wikipedia recommends it. It's a misuse of the term, and as such only bears mention if it's widespread. The current article correctly states that the term is used in various politically charged and often contradictory ways. That's good enough. Isomorphic 01:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be some discussion about non combat military organizations. It sounds a little like a square circle. Some research into arguments for and against inclusion need to be presented. Mrdthree 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems understandable, but I would emphasize the point that a noncombat paramilitary group must have more than military resemblence, it must be a group organized to serve a military purpose, e.g. salvation army no, boy scouts no, freemasons no, Society for Creative Anachronism no, civil defense yes, civil war reenactorsno, star trek fan club members or their military wing, the starfleet marine corps no Mrdthree 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic if you want to put the salvation army up on the page as a paramilitary group more power to you. Mrdthree 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
They list that America has 52,000 paramilitary, who are they? Listed on Active Troops list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.25 ( talk) 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Militias would probably make up the largest number of that because there are militias in every state and there are even many militias for individual counties and towns — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHoustonKid ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost every police department has a paramilitary unit. (ie SWAT team) They wear military-style uniforms and body armor and carry automatic weapons. -- 74.76.100.144 ( talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
i know of a paramilitary group caled pm5, it operates in the eastern u.s. and i saw its myspace page where it stated that they were a paramilitary/militia group. my brother has seen them in action and they are not police or swat or any of that usmcsoldier27 4:56 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.10.228 ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
will somebody please make a page about pm5! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmcsoldier27 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is confusing, as is the article, but fortunately not as much. In my understanding, "paramilitary" has three defining characteristics. 1) they are not an actual military or military body (para=beside), 2) they are organized along military lines, 3) they perform military-like duties. The emphasis on "auxilliary" in the intro confuses this because it assumes a relationship with an actual military. Civilian police can be paramilitary based upon their organization, as in US departments (with ranks, such as "captain" and structure of the organization), mind you this doesn't include something like the FBI. British police arguably aren't paramilitary. Boy Scouts, the IRA, the Salvation Army, FARC, right-wing American militias, Canadian mounties, gendarmerie - are all paramilitary organizations, despite what they want you to think or how they self-identify. In Columbia, the "paras" are specifically on the right and are so designated based on being auxiliary to the state (and capital) - but that's a specific local usage of the term. But it seems to me that at some point, a revolutionary force becomes an actual military in a civil war situation where the authority of the state breaks down. Not all military functions are combat related or require the use of arms, and "law enforcement" really has nothing to do with it because that function could be performed by military or non-military personnel, and "terrorism" may or may not be conducted by paramilitaries, but definitely is not performed by an actual military (that'd be guerrilla warfare). "Civilian" or not doesn't help to clarify whether an organization is paramilitary. Bobanny 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
removed reference to Society for Creative Anachronism as a "paramilitary" group. Are you kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a ( talk • contribs) 21,42 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The term paramilitary is very imprecise. the article needs to give a definition and allow links to other pages which people may, or may not, consider paramilitary.
The article formerly discussed a long, boring, and above all arbitrary list of organisations that one or other editor thought maybe might be paramilitary. This is really irrelevant. A long arbitrary list of organisations some editors think fill a very simple but very ambiguous definition makes a very bad article.
It also made statements about paramilitaries which are subjective and depend entirely on your opinion of what is paramilitary, e.g. "In military terms, paramilitary security forces are typically light infantry. Effectively led, they can stand in defense, especially in urban or unfenced border areas, but are less capable of offensive action or sustained combat operations due to a lack of heavy weapons, professional military training, and effective logistics support." This is arbitrary, long, speculative, unsourced, and subjective.
Other arbitrary rubbish includes:
As a result of the overall abismal quality of the article explained above, I have replaced it with an appropriately short and clear article, explaining the simple definition and the ambiguity of its application in practice, with relevant links. Mesoso2 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mesos2 poor article. I would also like to add that I changed the article when it said the "adult part of the Civil Air Patrol" Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has a cadet program that is very much involved in saving lives and disaster relief and is organized in a military fashion. When on an Air Force assigned mission they are considered part of the Air Force auxillary just like threr Senior member (adult) counter parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.214 ( talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom, List of Paramilitary Organizations links to a list of terrorist organizations. While terrorist groups are paramilitary, paramilitary is not necessarily terrorist, so therefore this is inaccurate. -- Demonesque 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think all terrorists are paramilitary. I believe the term usually applies to groups organized like the military. That is they have uniforms, ranks, etc. A group can have a paramilitary wing and members who participate in attacks such as suicide bombings. This would explain why some Islamic groups aren't referred to as paramilitary. Rds865 ( talk) 06:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don’t think all terrorist can be paramilitary since paramilitary is characterized by rank and uniforms.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I was confused that Private army redirects to Paramilitary - shouldn't it redirect to Mercenary? At the very least there should be a link between the two... Corington ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the line: "Militarized preexisting government agencies, such as SWAT teams and Black Cats." because A) the Black Cats of India had already been mentioned and B) SWAT is not a 'government agency' in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Yes, SWAT is a police unit/section/division/branch, and police agencies are government agencies, but the line made it seem that SWAT was a stand-alone government organization, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sings-With-Spirits ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
SWAT is back in the list of paramilitary organizations as "The SWAT of the United States."
There is no such thing as the SWAT of the United States. There is no SWAT organization. SWAT is a designation of a specially trained unit of a civilian police force. Police forces are part of a state, city or county government, not part of some federal force. In other words, the SWAT unit would act only in the places where the police force it is attached to has jurisdiction and is under the command of the civilian police agency. For example, the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) SWAT team could only act in the places where the LAPD has jurisdiction. According to the wikipedia article, SWAT "is a commonly used proper name for law enforcement units, which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." The list might be accurate if it said something like "The SWAT units of Law Enforcement agencies in the United States," but they are not a separate "force." I will change that sentence in the article. The SWAT article does not have a cross-reference to Paramilitary. Ileanadu ( talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which is not regarded as having the same status".
I have to disagree with the first phrase IF in the list we go on including the Gendarmerie forces. The Carabinieri have military status and are 100% militaries as they are also the 4th Armed Force in Italy. The RCMP have an honorary military status.
We could change the phrase in this way:
"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which is not regarded as having the same status, however there are paramilitary bodies (mostly Gendarmery forces) that have a military status". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 ( talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Would not the Boy Scouts, for example, be considered a paramilitary group in a broad sense because they wear uniforms, have ranks, have a command hierarchy, and stress survival skills and patriotism? -- Skb8721 ( talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That was a nice one. It's the same description as the Hitler Youth. There are strange and exchangeable sentence like "Certainly they were created to train future soldiers, but the fact that (could be some indefinite future US-President) Youth fought as such was an accident". And here it's a stupid idea? Here are some terms for you: GDRs Free German Youth, Komsomol, Deutsches Jungvolk, some Pioneer Organisation of socialistic countries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_paramilitary_groups Which of them were Party associated militias or just "children brainwashing organisation"? In one way it's interesting, that Germany tried very far-right and far-left politics. I hope the Germans learned something from their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.145 ( talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 82.113.121.145 ( talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The UVF and UDA are cited, correctly, as examples of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, yet the IRA is not mentioned and repeated attempts to amend this have been erased. The IRA and its many 'splinter groups' (Continuity, Provisional Real IRA etc) are constatntly referred to in the media as paramilitary groups. In fact, the activity of such groups is monitored in Northern Ireland by the International Monitoring Commission (IMC) under the remit of 'assessing Paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland'. I think there should be a clearly stated reason in the article as to why the IRA are not defined as a paramilitary group, according to the article's definition. A lot of people will expect it otherwise and continually edit the article to include their definition.
I would confirm as a UK Resident that most people here if asked to give an example of a paramilitary organisation would very likely say "the IRA", and of asked to give an example of 2 or 3 would probably still mention the IRA, but possibly also the UVF, maybe the UDA or the various organisations which use the IRA name, (Continuity, Official, Republican, Provisional etc etc). What they would not mention as paramilitary organisations are the French Gendarmes, or Canadian Mounties.
I suppose it comes down to the concept of "paramilitary" as internationally understood perhaps has it's origins in the French and Spanish Speaking world, and not the English speaking world?
In the Commonwealth, North America and most other English speaking countries police forces tend not to be part of the military. (British police forces tend not to use the word "civilian" to refer to their employees who fulfill ancillary functions, e.g. administration, process the payroll, serve food at the cafeteria etc, they prefer to use the terms "police staff"- the rationale, everyone who works for the police in the UK are civilian.) This is different to the tradition in France, Spain or Italy, (or Germany up to 1945).
In the English speaking world the only examples I can think of of paramilitary police forces, (And then they are not part of the military in the way that the French Gendarmes are), are The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Texas Rangers, but both in polities which had influence from French and Spanish speaking cultures- or perhaps more precisely Civil (as opposed to Common) Law tradition???
Given the idea of paramilitary policing, (in the legal sense as understood by people in France, Spain or even Texas) is absent in the UK, it's not surprising that we think in different ways about it. Indeed if we used the terms "paramilitary policing", people in the UK would think about a man in a balacalva who goes and shoots people's knee caps out for selling drugs, whereas the French person would probably think in terms of the policeman who would help if someone had a car accident in a rural area. (How we can include organisations as diverse as the Provisional IRA and the French Gendarmes in the same article is not an easy task.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.123.244.33 ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a source illustrating the understanding of the term "paramilitary" in a UK context. www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-on-paramilitary-groups-in-northern-ireland Not sure it would count for wikipedia purposes, since perhaps it counts as a primary one, still it illustrates how the term is used and understood in the UK.
The article does need looking at, since the usage of the meaning of the term "paramilitary", perhaps the article should itself describe that discussion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.119.217 ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"A paramilitary is a militarised force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces". The Carabinieri are one of Italy's armed forces, the other ones being army, aviation and navy. I am therefore removing them from the list. If you don't agree, please discuss. I am keeping the Guardia di Finanza, but I think there should be some discussion about this. The Guardia di Finanza is said to be integral part of the Italian armed forces, but, at the same time, is a militarized police force, and depends from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. It is also not listed as one of Italy's armed forces. Also, while the Carabinieri often see active role in combat abroad (e.g. Afghanistan), I've never heard of Finanzieri doing anything outside of Italy. 87.79.46.98 ( talk) 21:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like paramilitary do not use conventional weapons such as ground tanks or navel warships. Perhaps we can mention that in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 03:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Should the Paris Fire Brigade be part of this article? They perform a civil function, but have some sort of military status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.119.217 ( talk) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paramilitary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
From the White League through the Minutemen (anti-Communist organization) to the modern groups such as Redneck Revolt and Oath Keepers. I'll add some sources tomorrow or at least by the end of the weekend. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
To editor Thewolfchild: I reviewed the image and they are not toys, but may be holding toy guns as seen in other images about the same organization because it's a drill not a real one. While I like the image you added, I was hoping it can be replaced with some other image of the same organization but not recycled from elsewhere. The current one is in use in so many other places.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)x2 - :::You're upset because I reverted you? And now you complain that "I didn't study the image carefully"...? You added an image that clearly doesn't belong. You reverted when you shouldn't have. You clearly didn't study the image or you would've seen they are a military unit, not a paramilitary unit. There is a difference here. And while we're at it, why did you just re-write the file name as the image caption? That needed to be changed anyway. Look, if you want to find and add your own image so badly, go ahead. But if there's a problem with it, expect that it will be addressed. - theWOLFchild 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I just think you should have clarified this in your first revert- The edit summary of my first revert stated: "those are US Army MPs, you need a paramilitary unit, like a police swat team, not a military unit like this one" - I think that's pretty clear. - theWOLFchild 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@
NadirAli: - a couple things, first; the image that was previously on this page, along with similar images on Commons, all from the same Flikr account, have all been removed from Wikimedia. They were determinded to be toys and a copyright vio as they are protected sculptures. Second, with that said, I see you
changed the image again today, with the edit summary: "should this do for now
". I'm not sure what you mean by that, nor do I understand why you changed images. The previous image, (seen below on the left) shows a perfect example of a paramilitary unit. An organized SWAT team, in uniform, with matching gear and helmets, all heavily armed with similar, military style rifles, and facing the camera. Yet you removed that, and added an image (seen below on the right) that shows the backs of group of seemingly random, disorganized guys all standing around in some sand lot, looking into woods and away from the camera. There is no matching uniforms and tactical gear, so what about this image says "paramilitary"...? This is a scene you could be found at hundreds, if thousands on outdoor civilian shooting ranges across the US, with everyday shooting enthusiast taking target practice.
This change does not appear to ne an improvement to the article, (quite the opposite actually) and considering you've indicated a possible temporary nature of your image being here, I'm wondering; why make the switch at all? - theWOLFchild 03:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
To editor Thewolfchild:, what are your thoughts on me using it with this image. It's not in use anywhere else and the individuals in it are training at a naval base, but are not navy personnel. They are civilian police SWAT being trained by the American navy.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 22:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for that clarity SnsjakMgsjam ( talk) 04:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)