User talk:Simglish

These accusations you make are serious and damaging. There's no political campaign, no ulterior motive. You simply don't read the European Union documents, because the source links are from the European Union. It's clearly written that a unified army like the Chinese or American one doesn't exist in the treaties or in practice. This doesn't mean that an army constituted by the member states of the European Union doesn't exist, both in the treaties and in practice, that is, that they are interoperable with each other, that have shared and continue to share common operations under NATO supervision or control. If, on the other hand, your expectations are to see a unified army under the control of the European Union, I think you'll be disappointed for a long time, if not forever. As I've included the link to the official European Union document on the interoperability of European armed forces, Why does this scare or alarm you? The European Army is de facto made up of the armies of the Union's member states under NATO command and control. And if you read the documents carefully, you'll see exactly what I've said. But you won't find any document stating that the European army is a unified army of the European Union like the Chinese, American, or Indian ones. The article clearly states that defense is the exclusive responsibility of individual member states, but I don't want to repeat myself. Perhaps you haven't fully understood the texts and what's written in the article. Dorian88A (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

According to your own words: "doesn't mean that an army constituted by the member states of the European Union doesn't exist, both in the treaties and in practice, that is, that they are interoperable with each other, that have shared and continue to share common operations under NATO supervision or control". So they are not under EU control but under the control of the member states and NATO and therefore not a unified EU armed forces. A European army is a proposed concept of "a unified army under the control of the European Union" so it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, don't write about it as if it does. There's a big difference between writing about a unified "European Armed Forces" as if it does does exist and talking about European armed forces in general. If I "won't find any document stating that the European army is a unified army of the European Union", then it doesn't yet exist. If "defense is the exclusive responsibility of individual member states", it is not a unified European army because the competency belongs to the individual member states and not the EU as an entity even if the member states have mutual defence arrangements across multiple levels. Simglish (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You're just making confusion, the armies are under the coordination of the EU through the Common Security and Defence Policy (European Defence Union). Your assertion that a unified army is exclusive cannot limit the article's structure. This article only mentions a unified army. This is absurd, and contradicts the reality that where European armies cooperate, they are interoperable and, moreover, integrate into various industrial development plans for the defense sector. I'm moving the debate to the talk section of the page so anyone who wants to contribute can do so. Dorian88A (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to European army. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I have left the obviously-falsified misinformation for the time being and am grateful that @Dorian88A has allowed me to replace the fake shield of the fake European Armed Forces with one that is slightly more relevant, as well as replace the fake military age and fake conscription rules to indicate that it varies depending on the fake service branches of the European Armed Forces. I have stopped adding the possible misinformation notices for readers accessing the article and will wait for a consensus to develop on the Request for Comment before an uninvolved editor unevitably adds it back. Simglish (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The consensus on the Talk page seems to be that the European Armed Forces doesn't exist so I have re-added the notices. If the notices are removed again, I will seek help at the appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Simglish (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Simglish: Have you read WP:CIVIL and WP:DR? Keep in mind that walking away is an option, even if just for a time, and from just this article. Not every article is worth your precious time. Elrondil (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I have walked away for the time being but it would be extremely unethical to allow an article this important with 100,000 annual views be completely filled with blatant and obvious misinformation, and it makes Wikipedia look bad. It's technically not worth anyone's time to fix Wikipedia articles, but you have made over 8000 edits in less than a year. Simglish (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)