Talk:Rules of engagement

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Law Mid‑importance Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Deleted section.

Is this a joke? The anti-Israel activists go to every corner of Wikipedia to spew their trash. Listing the recent Gaza Flotilla incident as an example of loose ROE? Give us a break. Go spread your propaganda on one of the myriad of anti-Israel and anti-semitic websites out there, and stay away from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.67.70 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares. 12.86.230.202 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article is a mess

The very first sentence, with its weird mention of piracy, doesn't make any sense at all. As well, in a later section, someone has shovelled in a reference to a critique that just comes out of nowhere. It should be in the critique section. I came looking for specific information and found, essentially, junk that had been edited by persons apparently seeking to enforce a POV on the overall article. Disappointing. Theonemacduff (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I've made a fairly significant number of changes to the article, to try to narrow the focus and actually discuss the subject. I am having some difficulty finding a credible source on the general subject, although there are some specific British ones that I have access to.

I removed the NATO/ Brit/ USMC section as it wasn't really all that useful. Whilst the Brit section was apposite he article shouldn't be Brit centric. The USMC material was more about classification of subject individuals than RoE per se.

The ranty section has come out completely. There are issues with RoE, but the fact that murder isn't really permitted isn't a flaw and not really part of the grown up debate about how they're used.

ALR (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules of Engagement"

FYI, Rules of EngagementRules of Engagement is under discussion, see Talk:Rules of Engagement (TV series). -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hi This article is missing some history content. I believe this need to be resolved as well. Nightvour (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]