Talk:Military globalization

Citation needed

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

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

So basically the term military globalisation does not exist in reliable sources. So does that mean this entire article is a mass of Synth and OR? Irondome (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the term does exist, but not in big number of texts, and the definitions differ from what the wikipedian writes; like here. The very first version or our article was already original essay. I guess one needs to scrap this text and start all over, this time starting from sources which directly discuss MILGLO ad define the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

WP:SYNTH avoidance

After the lede of the article was changed, I removed the rest of the article as WP:SYNTH. Whoever endeavors the work on the article please keep in mind that the information must be added only from the sources which explicitly discuss the concept of military globalization. It is especially important, since the concept is relatively less covered than other kind of globalization, and it is very easy to slide into original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Doomed stub

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

References

Article Evaluation

It would be easier to read if you put the section where you list the "three distinct phenomena" in its own section instead of flowing through the entire article. Jbracale (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)