Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alzubaira.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is inaccurate by far there is American bases in over 80 different nations and around 250 of them in some form or fashion if we are talking British base in Nepal or others as “bases” then we have to accept the states 250 in 88 countries 72.143.225.159 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Translation Help Needed

The french section is in french despite being an english page as Im not a french speaker Id request someone to translate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskermax5 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

about british bases

I think that the troops in northern ireland should be excluded from this article cause the northern ireland is a part of the UK but not the foreign terrotory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.214.175 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The british base in nepal is not a base per se, but an office that looks after Gorkha recruitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of countries with overseas military bases

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of countries with overseas military bases's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Podvig-History":

• From List of Russian military bases abroad: Podvig, Pavel (2002). "History and the Current Status of the Russian Early-Warning System" (pdf). Science and Global Security. 10: 21–60. doi:10.1080/08929880212328. ISSN 0892-9882.
• From Hantsavichy Radar Station: Podvig, Pavel (2002). "History and the Current Status of the Russian Early-Warning System" (PDF). Science and Global Security. 10: 21–60. doi:10.1080/08929880212328.

Reference named "Astronautix":

• From Sary Shagan: Encyclopedia Astronautica - "Sary Shagan"
• From List of Russian military bases abroad: "Encyclopedia Astronautica - "Sary Shagan"". Encyclopedia Astronautica. Retrieved 2012-03-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo of Serbia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.228.166 (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Consistent Vandalism to Russia Section

The article should stick to countries that are internationally recognized. Crimea is NOT internationally recognized as Russian. The UN condemned Russia's annexation there. Transdniester is NOT an internationally recognized country. Neither are South Osettia or Abkhazia. Please refrain from further vandalism. Changing the names to fringe view points is not conducive to producing an encyclopedic article. --108.31.150.218 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The "UN condemned" Russia's annexation of Crimea with less that 52% of the member states representing less than 34% of the world's population. This is the definition of "internationally recognized"? Szerbey (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

This is getting completely out of hand. The number of potential IP socks and/or meatpuppets tweaking, then changing this area in an attempt to fly under the radar is an energy sinkhole for editors trying to stay on top of substantial POV changes. I'm also calling out Trabant1963 to actually discuss their changes on the talk page as has been requested by a few regular editors. So far, you've proven yourself to be WP:NOTHERE, and continue your identical disruptive editing behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article should stick to countries that are internationally recognised, why does the list include Northern Cyprus and Kosovo? The page should contain disputed countries as long as the disputes are explained. Doeze (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo (for the most part) has significant international recognition. North Cyprus I agree with. Garuda28 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

True, Kosovo has a high level of recgonition but hardly enough for it to not be a disputed region like Northern Cyprus, Crimea etc. I think Turkey's base in Northern Cyprus should still be described as in 'Northern Cyprus', but the same logic should apply to the states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is fine as long as the dispute is shown, as it is with Northern Cyprus and as I copied in my edit. Additionally, with the Russian base in Crimea being described as a foreign base in Ukraine, shouldn't another section be added for foreign Israeli military bases in Syria's occupied Golan Heights? Doeze (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The primary issue is that some terroriories are considered occupied (such as Crimea) and some (such as Kosovo) are not. Those that are considered occupied should have their recognized state as the listed country, those that are not should have their flag listed. Garuda28 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Serbia considers Kosovo to be occupied Serbian territory, i.e. Serbia views Kosovo the same way Georgia views Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Ukraine views Crimea. So when we treat Kosovo differently from Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Crimea what we're really doing is engaging pro-Washington propaganda. Szerbey (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Because Kosovo has significant international recognition. A note is made of the disputed status and talks with Serbia. Very different situationsGaruda28 (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As such, should the entry for the Turkish base in Northern Cyprus be described as a Turkish base in the Republic of Cyprus? Doeze (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what pro NATO lobbies on wikipedia think the status of Crimea is. The post coup Ukraine gov. has dropped claims on Crimea. Crimea itself has voted to not recognize the post coup Ukraine gov, has recognized itself as part of Russia. And Russia has 100% administrative control of Crimea. Any attempts to ignore reality is purely political.

-G

Russia-related changes

I am opening this section per my comments at User talk:Trabant1963. Editor Trabant1963's last edit to this list-article was this one, which is a disputed change, and I myself just reverted it. I asked Trabant1963 to discuss here rather than re-making the change. Trabant, could you please explain what change(s) you want to make, and why? By the way, in Trabant's past edits to this list-article, I noticed that they were perhaps trying to edit the Russia section to present it from Russia's point of view. I think it may be reasonable to try to do that. For example, if there is disagreement about Sevastopol in the Crimea (which Russia may consider to be part of Russia now) then the Russia section could first list the military bases that Russia considers to be outside of Russia, and then also explain any different views. However that would require sources that establish clearly what Russia's perspective is, for example to establish that Russia officially considers Sevastopol to be a part of Russia, if it does. --doncram 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Further, I just tried this change to the Russia section, which may be considered a Bold edit and anyone may revert it. But I hope it can be considered as a compromise. What it shows now is:

Russia also has military in the Crimea, which Russia may consider to have joined Russia as a result of the the 2014 referendum, although has not been recognized by most other countries. Most countries consider the Crimea to be part of the Ukraine, and thus consider Russia's military there to be overseas from Russia:

and

* Crimea - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol,[reference to Klein] (Crimea is considered part of the Ukraine by most countries, but it is under Russian control as a result of the 2014 Crimean crisis). Around 26,000 personnel.[reference to Klein]

In that I tried to accurately reflect that the Crimea is considered to be overseas by most countries but may not be considered overseas by Russia. Perhaps it may be longer than absolutely necessary, but I don't think it matters if it is a bit wordy, as long as it is clear. I deliberately used "weasel" (wp:WEASEL) wording in saying "Russia may consider to have joined" and hope that can be accepted temporarily. I would prefer to have it improved by stating Russia's view more clearly with a reference that directly establishes what Russia's official view is, and I would appreciate if anyone else could add that. Hope this helps. --doncram 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your quoted addition as being good faith, but as being an unnecessarily long and convoluted explanation of the circumstances as it the link to the annexation article is already in place, and the status reflects both the majority of the global community's stance, as well as the fact that the base is already listed under the "Russian" subheader. If readers with to follow up for further details, the main article/list describes the 'disputed territories' situation quite clearly. If you're unhappy with the revert, please let me know in order that we can work out a more satisfactory method of presentation. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea (now joined Russia as a result of the 2014 referendum which was not recognized by the majority of the countries). Around 26,000 personnel. - correctly and truly. Let her show where it's false— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Trabant1963, you have reinstated content without consensus. Leaving a message on this talk page challenging me to prove to you that your contentious rendition of content is 'false' is only further testimony to the fact that you are treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

A number of editors (including myself) have made allowances for your poor English, and have given you the benefit of the doubt with regards to whether you're editing in good faith both on your own talk page, and on this article's talk page. The only conclusion to be drawn is that you're undoubtedly not listening and WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

country links and other issues in United States section

Currently in the United States section there is a list of countries where the U.S. has bases. The first item is Afghanistan. But that takes the reader to Wikipedia's article about the country, not to more specific information about U.S. bases there. Unfortunately the List of United States military bases article mentions Afghanistan bases in a couple separated places, so I don't see any specific target for a link to one place covering them in more detail. How about changing the first entry to, say:

• Afghanistan: nine U.S. Marine Corps bases and seven U.S. Air Force bases

which summarizes from the List of United States military bases main article. Or use "multiple" instead of the "nine" and "seven"? --doncram 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem with lead, plus general problems

I've removed the tags for expanding this article further using the RU version as, having checked it, it's been tagged for needing to be updated, doesn't carry references, and has fallen behind this article in terms of being comprehensive.

Instead, I've tagged it for the lead needing to be rewritten, plus for more references to be found (simply because much of it is unreferenced and I don't want to WP:TAGBOMB it. Per WP:TITLE, the article is "List of countries with overseas military bases" which the article adheres to, although it is open to expansion. The WP:LEAD, however, addresses only US and Russian bases and the significance of a new escalation of post-Cold War strategic bases, omitting Pakistani/Indian, Middle Eastern, and other relationships: the substance of which also needs to be referenced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

US bases and personnel in South Korea

There have been a number of changes made to the number of US facilities and number of personnel in South Korea over the last few days. While I don't doubt that these changes are good faith, nor doubt that they are fairly close to the reality, reliable sources are lacking, therefore I've tagged them for better sources.

Per WP:WINARS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), the articles being referenced are, in themselves, badly referenced with multiple red links and unverifiable content. Any assistance in providing reliable references would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition

What actually constitutes an "overseas military base" on here? For the UK, I've been listing permanent overseas bases. These are bases that the UK owns regardless of whether or not they are being used for operations. I believe the bases listed for the USA, Russia and France follow that guideline too. However, I've noticed that some countries (Italy, for example) have Afghanistan listed just because they're contributing troops to Operation Resolute Support? If we're listing deployments as overseas bases then we'd be here forever listing the deployments of the USA, UK and France. I recommend we only list the permanent ones. What does everybody else think? TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheArmchairSoldier: Agreed. This list compromises military bases where there are official contracts for the use of territory in one nation-state by another nation-state exclusively, not ancillaries under a broader NATO (or other) agreement for use of a base by a non nation-state body under a cooperative agreement. I've removed the Afghanistan entry for Italy, but I suspect that there are more such entries throughout this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for the clarification. Where does this leave facilities that are used to train local forces? Examples would be the British Peace Support Team in South Africa or the Italian/Turkish training facilities in Somalia. I suggest these be removed, as their only purpose seems to be to train forces of the host nation. --TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheArmchairSoldier: Again, agreed. Anything that doesn't meet with the definition of an overseas Military base is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Name of list-article

Shouldn't this be named "List of overseas military bases by operating country" or something like that? Or simply "List of overseas military bases"? This is fundamentally a list of operating bases, organized by the countries that have them. --doncram 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram: I think "List of overseas military bases" is too generalised a description. "List of overseas military bases by operating country" is fine but, essentially, it is entirely a different concept to "List of countries with overseas military bases". My understanding is that it expressly addresses which countries in the world have overseas bases. I think you've hit the nail on the head with your observation that it is organised "by the countries that have them." (my emphasis). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding planned bases

Given that this is a "List of countries with overseas military bases", not "List of countries with overseas military bases and planned military bases", I've removed content only just introduced on Turkish bases as WP:NOTNEWS. Planned bases are not operating bases: they're not operative until they've been constructed and personnel are officially and actively in place. It is not even guaranteed that any agreements by the host country will be honoured until such a time as the base is officially operative (unless one has a WP:CRYSTAL ball). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

US bases in Afghanistan

This part seems outdated. With the reduction of US troops in Afghanistan, the number of US bases there has been reduced, with some closed and others transfered to the Afghan Armed Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.201.37 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed I've removed all of the bases confirmed to be closed or have been handed over. I'm dubious as to the status of the remaining bases as I can't find reliable sources confirming the closure or hand-over, and without such sources I'm proscribed by WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Italian bases compared with Other Bases listed on the List of Countries with overseas military bases

Someone can explain why should be deleted the Italian Military bases in : Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo,Lebanon,Malta and Somalia? and why the list of India are not removed yet? in the List of India the list quote : Bhutan, Madagascar Maldives,Mauritius, Seychelles when the listed quotes are just Coastal Surveillance Radar (CSR) less relevant than a Military base and a curiosity is that the quote of Bhutan is just a team of trainer, and all the resource come from Indian journals of last year that nobody know if those facilities are under construction or are in full Functionality. here there is no "impartiality", so I will quote again the list of the Italian bases in Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malta and Somalia, Since they are structures that work today under the command of Italian military, in Italian bases and with military employees in various areas, from the main building of the training of security and forces armed movements of those countries.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

- The British base in Nepal is not a base and just an office to administer recruitment.

- The Indian Army has multiple bases in Bhutan (on the eastern and western fronts of Bhutan - including a small air force presence in Paro Airport, the training mission (IMTRAT) is separate from the bases. It also maintains a small air force unit in Surkhet in Nepal and an administrative unit for recruitment of Nepalese soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

France

I am not really interested in the Italian and Indian military bases issue. But please stop removing actual french military bases from the article. 109.77.121.90 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Should French Guiana, Polynesia, Reunion, Mayotte etc be listed under "overseas" bases? These are part of France, and (perhaps with the exception of bits of Poylnesia, parts of the EU also). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.82.99.10 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed them, as they are a part of France and not overseas bases.Garuda28 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with this list, inconsistent, misleading

Seems to just be editors from a certain country / group of countries insisting that their country has dozens of military bases, from anything from full-scale bases to "docking facilities" and arms storage, but any other country's actual military units based overseas are not worthy? Also we need to clarify that most of these are in fact just units within local bases. It's extremely misleading to suggest Volkel Air Base is a US base. Instead, it should say "Unit at Volkel Air Base". Rob984 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with concern about inconsistency. And we should be careful not to imply that a big military base with more than one country involved belongs to one country when it does not. But I don't think that a country has to have the majority of ownership of facilities of the base to count. I would think a U.S. unit at Volkel Air Base should count as a military base abroad, if the U.S. "projects power" from it, i.e. if the U.S. is allowed to use its force there freely to pursue U.S. interests. In other words, if some other country could reasonably perceive the U.S. unit there to pose a military threat to it, then it counts as a U.S. military base abroad. See my comment in next section. --doncram 06:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with caveats. Fake/bloated bases must be deleted. Any actual on-ground unit/infrastructure must be retained within this article with clear articulation of the nature, size, scope of that entity. This way it remains fair, balanced and factual. In that sense, I agree with you both. Just adding further clear suggestions/caveats to make this article fruitful. I also suggest, nicely guide editors to this, coach new editors to do this instead of keep reverting them. A little more kindness and bit extra effort from the experienced editors to subtly, non-patronisingly and respectfully guide/coach other editors (goodfaith) goes long way. Thanks all for the passion and effort. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I have heard that someone has deleted the Italian military base in Djibouti , why? , it's similar of those of Japan "Deployment Airforce for Counter-Piracy Enforcement", in Djibouti USA, France, Italy and Japan have Military bases, in the United Arab Emirates, Italy have a similar Military base, I don 't know for what reason someone delete the Military bases of Italy When in the list of other countries there even "Coastal Surveillance Radars", I would like to put also the Coastal Surveillance Radar of Italy , but I just listed the Military Bases , There are many military bases listed in the list of other countries, Which aren't Military Bases or "deployment" as in the case of Turkey. --LuigiPortaro29 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs)

Hi, LuigiPortaro29. As you can see by the various comments on the talk page, there doesn't appear to be a consistent understanding of the term 'military base' and, per Rob984 and TheArmchairSoldier, this is causing no end of headaches. I'm also pinging other experienced editors who have been involved in this list for their opinions: Doncram, Jim1138, Rhoark, and Filpro. Personally, I don't think that any bases which can be verified to have been agreed on, but are not yet working bases, and have no known personnel attached to them, should be listed per WP:CRYSTAL. Agreements have been retracted or not acted on in the past. Short term stints are also not bases, particularly when they are under the umbrella of NATO peacekeeping operation, cannot be considered to be bases for any one country. Bases to be listed should be exclusively reliably sourced, operating bases used by sovereign states specifically to function as their exclusive overseas bases. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to ping, I agree that the term military base abroad needs to be defined better here. I am surprised that the two German training sites in the U.S. are listed in this articles as bases, because I would think that a military base is part of a nation projecting its power abroad. I cannot imagine that Germany would be allowed to use those facilities to host even fairly benign military flights over a country in Central America to project power, say, if there was some threat to a German embassy there. And I most definitely can't believe German planes based in the U.S. would be allowed to bomb or attack any other country. I would guess instead that the contract with the U.S. explicitly requires any pilots and aircraft to return to Germany before embarking on any military mission, because the U.S. does not want to become embroiled in just anything Germany wants to do.
• However the military base article relies upon a Collins Dictionary definition that includes mere "training". I also would not think that a Coastal Surveillance Radar station would count as a military base abroad, if it could not project power outwards by being the location of offensive ability.
• So I think we need more/better sources on what a military base is, and to use military definitions not general dictionary ones. This book describes disagreement between Iran and the USSR about what would define a United States base in Iran. The USSR was asserting a missile site or a harbor or anything of military value under U.S. control would count as a base. I am not sure about a harbor alone, without U.S. military ships being stationed there, say. But I like the aspect that a military base abroad must be something that has military value. If military value is required, then the German training site in the U.S. (which I am assuming has no value in any German military operation) would not count as a military base abroad for Germany.
• I tend to agree with editor Iryna Harpy that a country's deployment within a NATO or UN peace-keeping operation would not count as a base abroad, because the country would probably not be free to use its forces for any military purpose in the country's interest that differs from the mission and/or is outside the control of NATO or the UN. It would not be part of the country's projecting its own individual power abroad.
• We need more sources about how the term "military base" has been defined in international treaties. I am not sure if this book source gives enough...it mentions the Shah of Iran offering to have the definition of a military base be decided by others, but I don't know if it came to any definition. --doncram 06:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, Hey, there! I guess that you know that I am not new into this page, now for about three years that I follow this page and I can always guarantee that here have been discussions, I held many discussions with TheArmchairSoldier and even with Filpro, and you know it. with respect to military bases, they always accepted the Italian military bases in Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates, unlike of the rest of "Italians bases" just to give you an example , the base in Djibouti is "the first real permanent base operational logistics of the Italian armed forces outside the country. " The base have a role similar with Those of France and the US, or Japan , the Military base of United Arab Emirates have a role similar to those of the US listed on the list. on Japan's list, Turkey, United Kingdom, India there aren't clear things, you say that we are talking about military bases, the bases listed by me, are NOT under NATO command, or for UN-peacekeeping in fact I tell you that there is no way to cancel this bases, since you said a" Military base", but inside on the list of other countries there so many mistakes as ( Coastal Surveillance Radar) or "Training forces". Why not be more clear and unbiased with every list ?,Thanks!--LuigiPortaro29 06:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm wary of any criteria other than "reliable sources call it a military base". Rhoark (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What definition of "overseas" are we using? Is Germany really overseas compared to France or Bhutan compared to India? Filpro (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw the comments and I agree with Doncram that bases under NATO or UN peacekeeping must not be listed, I had spoken here and in other pages with TheArmchairSoldier and had a confrontation in past with Filpro about the terms of military bases, both have accepted the Italian military bases in Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates,specially the base in Djibuti similar to those of Japan and France, I will add the military bases in Djibuti and United Arab Emirates again, since they are not under NATO command or UN peace-keeping and not Short term bases . the thing that is not clear to me why the removal?, when Personally You Iryna Harpy had always accepted those Military bases, I personally think "the unknown" that always makes vandalism, have vandalized the resources in the list of Italy, that's why then user Iryna Harpy have removed the Italian section. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)--LuigiPortaro29 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, uncountered opposes (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

---

List of countries with overseas military bases → List of military bases abroad, by operating country – Request this move to address two issues: 1) use "abroad" not "overseas" because Bhutan is not overseas from Pakistan, etc. (as pointed out by Filpro and perhaps others); 2) to suggest properly that this list-article lists all military bases abroad, organized by country controlling them, rather than just listing the countries and not their bases (as brought up in #Name of list-article). doncram 22:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Countries don't have be literally separated by a sea to be "overseas" from one another. I don't think there's any ambiguity in the current title. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Overseas" is a WP:COMMONNAME expression for 'not within the territory of the sovereign state', not a relative concept. The problems with the content will remain the same, being what constitutes a sovereign nation-state's OS military base. To my way of thinking, they are unrelated to shared peacekeeping bases, but are contracts with another nation-state to build and run bases for exclusive use from which to launch attacks, claim air and sea space, etc. for the interests of their own nation-state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misleading map

I've removed the RF bases map as WP:OR until issue of disputed territories being designated in another colour is addressed at Wiki Commons. As is noted on the file's talk page, Crimea is not internationally recognised as a territory of the Russian Federation, any more than Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be consensus for this change, as it slightly changes the focus of the article. (non-admin closure) Bradv 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

List of countries with overseas military bases → List of overseas military bases by country –

Obviously, this title is more accurate. This isn't just a list of countries, its a list of military bases grouped by country.

To User:Iryna Harpy, please actually read the past requested move before knee jerk reverting a straightforward change. It was opposed because it involved changing "overseas military bases" to "military bases aboard". Nothing to do with correcting the poor arrangement of the title, which is what all I have amended here. Edit: I notice you actually commented, what the hell?

Rob984 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in the article's current form. The incongruity between what the lead describes, and bases represented in the list is not conducive to the proposed title. The lead currently provides a background into the recent history of OS military bases, with its focus being on the acceleration of offense forces between the superpowers of the 20th century. I'm even dubious about Germany and Japan being listed as if they have their own, stand-alone overseas bases without UN consensus (they were kind of proscribed post WWII!). Compare the lead of this article with the Overseas military bases of France lead where it is made clear that the French purpose of the bases are "to conduct expeditionary warfare". There's no differentiation between WP:V and what form the bases take at this point. As a counterpoint, the Franco-German Brigade is more an EU (the Eurocorps) than German 'battalion'. Again, does it mean that it's a single sovereign state base with the explicit purpose of being a base from which to run a unilateral aggressor offensive as is inferred from the lead? All the name change would be doing is concealing a fundamental flaw with the list: that is doesn't address the kind of overseas bases are being listed. Either the lead is changed to allow for a far looser interpretation of what an overseas base is or is not, or a more stringent definition of 'overseas military base' needs to be constructed from reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"a base from which to run a unilateral aggressor offensive as is inferred from the lead"

That isn't true at all anyway. The vast majority of US bases in Europe are NATO bases with the hosting nation also stationing personnel alongside US personnel. US airbases in Europe are sub-leased, usually by the hosting country's military, to the US military. The US therefore has no jurisdiction to unilaterally operate from those bases, if the hosting nation objects. And the Sigonella crisis demonostrates that indeed, the country's military can intervene in US operations within their jurisdiction.

This is no different for British, American, or French military stationed on German soil. Franco-German Brigade is a collaborate between France and Germany, no different to Volkel Air Base is for the US and Netherlands, or NATO Base Sigonella is for the US and Italy. It's a permanent stationing of military personnel on another country's territory. The issue with this page isn't collaborative brigades, bases, or whatever, it's the "communications stations" which have 4 personnel and are classed as "military bases". And it's a real problem when we have Vox News telling the world that America has 1000s of military bases around the world.

It would be really great if we could mention when forces are only a contingent stationed within another country's base, however. Volkel Air Base is not a "overseas military base" of the United States. It's a Dutch airbase. But every time these concerns are raised, they are just dismissed and ignored. If we just started explaining what these bases are, the definition problem would become a lot more clear.

Rob984 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iryna Harpy, but with no objection to restructuring the article to fit the proposed title and then moving it. The article currently lists countries with overseas military bases rather than the bases itself, notwithstanding the use of some particular bases as examples. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rob984 and BDD: While I agree with you, Rob984, that a better description per base would go a long way in setting this list on the right path, I'm still of the opinion that a better lead using RS is the only effective way forward for defining the scope of this list. At the moment, Australia is not included in the list, and there is only one article on Australian that I can find in Wikipedia (being List of Australian military bases) which only addresses bases in Australia. The fact is, however, that Australia has OS bases which may be described as some form of 'peacekeeping' bases, yet there are RS to attest to the fact that they've been used for far more aggressive reasons (i.e., literally taking over the Solomon islands as a 'failed state' as one instance of more dubious practices). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Undiscussed move

(edit conflict)This list was moved to "List of overseas military bases by country" by Rob984. Given that variants on the title (and how it would impact on the content) have been mulled over for some time, I've reverted on the understanding that this is up for WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I object to the move as the majority of countries in the world don't have OS bases. We've only just established what doesn't constitute a base, and that there are only a handful of countries that do have OS bases per reliable sources. Opening up the title in this manner does not meet with WP:PRECISION. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't decipher your point here. It's just correcting poor English. I don't have time to argue it frankly. Rob984 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to check you understand, a list of countries is:

• United Kingdom
• China
• Germany
• France

This article is not a list of countries, it's a list of military bases grouped by country. If you don't understand the difference then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rob984 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have time to argue it, don't move it. My explanation is right there above. "List of countries with overseas military bases" is not poor English, and means something other than "List of overseas military bases by country". Please have the courtesy to read talk pages before making unilateral decisions. Note, also, that whacking on RM after you've made the move, then behaving as if I'm stupid is a contravention of WP:AGF. I understood your move to be AGF, but do not agree that it is a better or more fitting title for the list. In such a case, you ought to know that WP:BRD is the correct procedure, not being dismissive. There is always a delay between the revert and the talk page thread being opened. It's remarkable that you're the only one who seems to know what the article is and isn't about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just not understanding your explanation at all. If there's some logic in it that I'm missing, I apologies. I can't refute an argument I don't understand. Though, I don't see the harm in whacking a requested move on the talk page anyway. See what others think. Rob984 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rob984: I've no objections to the whacking, just being treated like a buffoon because you'd done so before I left a thread as to why I objected. I should have added an 'ec' tag immediately (which I've done now) between my posting the new thread and your posting the RM. Ultimately, I don't have particularly strong objections to the move, but rather thought that the direction to go in was to enumerate the countries with overseas bases in the lead, then list them alphabetically from there. It's only a hair's breadth in the difference, but you'll hopefully understand the gist of the distinction I'm making. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries with overseas military bases. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DJ0En2_KGdkJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d16d268-629b-11e4-9838-00144feabdc0.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20150108184343/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d16d268-629b-11e4-9838-00144feabdc0.html on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d16d268-629b-11e4-9838-00144feabdc0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Concerning these recent additions by Goldring234, I had to revert them as they are either contradicted by the references cited or not supported at all. Please see the definition of what constitutes a base or facility. Chinese military labourers [1] working on highway projects overseas do not qualify, neither do vaguely termed listening/radar "stations' with no data on personnel deployment. Dalbandin Airport would not qualify, as the U.S. ceased its use of Pakistani bases long ago; the Shamsi Airbase was the last publicly known base for the Afghan war which came under Pakistani control in 2011 (see this section). Reliable sources should be used to source such entries and validate the information. Mere claims/speculation are not sufficient. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The references do support the edits. If you could be specific which references does not support what edits, that would be helpful. Military Radar Installations are by definition considered as Military facilities. If you think that's not the case, please do cite a reference. And a Military Radar Installation does not run by itself. It needs trained military personnel to run and operate it. That is understood. The references with respect to the Chinese military presence specifically uses the term 'Soldiers of the People's Liberation Army', not 'Military Labour' as you put it. The other references uses the term 'troops'. You seem to have included Pakistan in the list of countries which operate small numbers of overseas military bases(in plural). You haven't provided any references to it. Even in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan do not "operate" a base. It's part of a multilateral initiative. You can as well say Sudan too operates a base in Saudi Arabia by that criteria. I have reverted the edits back. Please let me know if you have concerns. Regards.Goldring234 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Goldring234, rather than continue the dispute on the article, could perhaps give Mar4d and other editors time to discuss the matter here on the talk page? Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No issues with that. Can we also revert back the edits which Mar4d added from yesterday as well? Also wanted to add one more thing. The US still operates drone bases in Pakistan as cited in this report Goldring234 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Goldring234: I'm afraid you are engaging in WP:OR with regards to the radar installations. Please provide reliable references discussing in depth that those installations are controlled, manned and used as bases by Indian forces. I am unable to find any data on Indian troops in Oman, Mongolia, Mauritius etc. The refs cited are inferior webpages and are mostly written opinion pieces, speculation, political commentary etc. The Chinese presence you are talking about is not a military presence per se; they are mostly army engineers and technicians who have been involved in the Karakoram Highway construction, which is a bilateral project going several decades back. China does not actually have a "base" presence in Pakistan, see this. Neither does the U.S. for that matter, whose bases are all listed. As regards to Pakistan, there is an entire article on Pakistani deployments and their presence in Saudi Arabia is well known; in particular, the battalion stationed in Tabuk since 1982 on whom multiple reliable sources are present. Most of them are in training, advisory and technical roles in addition to defence commitments which is no different to the other deployments abroad. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem here, is coming up with / finding a definition of what actually constitutes a military base. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Military base#Overseas military base gives a reasonable definition: "An overseas military base is a military base that is geographically located outside of the territory of the country whose armed forces are the principal occupants of the base." Mar4d (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d : Not sure what you mean by 'in depth' and even if that is required in this instance. Sufficient reliable sources were listed which mention oversees Indian Military Radar installations, Listening posts in Mongolia, Mauritius, Oman which is what the edits mentioned. I am afraid you call them inferior web pages when they are reliable news outlets. Those are the same kind of sources which were cited for Pakistani military presence in Saudi Arabia. Is Pakistani new paper Dawn any more reliable than New York times? There is a Chinese troop presence in Gilgit-Baltistan as multiple given references cite. what they are doing there does not deny this fundamental fact.Goldring234 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great : Exactly Goldring234 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d : The definition for a Military base given by you is a sound one. That definition does not exclude Radar Installations or Listening posts . But using that defination and seeing the references provided, I wonder how Pakistan qualifies to be in this list. While the references cite pakistani military presence in Saudi Arabia in vague terms citing primarily Pakistani sources, they do not mention which facilities are there operating from and if they are the principle occupants of that facility.Goldring234 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the sources you have used do not meet WP:RS. Some of them are not even academic or news sources. And if a 1,000-strong Pakistan Army battalion in Saudi Arabia is vague to you, I'm afraid to say the Indian section does not meet even that level of notability. Until now, none of the entries give any data on Indian personnel abroad. Where are your sources on Indian deployments in Oman, Mongolia, all the countries mentioned? Just saying there is a "listening post" (whatever that is) is not insufficient. And please read the links provided, the Chinese government does not acknowledge a military presence. Mar4d (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d : They actually do meet WP:RS. You are the only one who is saying they don't without providing any evidence. Since you never answered my question, I will ask again. How is your source for Pakistani deployment in Saudi Arabia - Dawn Newspaper any more credible than my source for Chinese deployment in Pakistan (New york times). According to you, how does Dawn source qualify for WP:RS and New York Times source does not ?. On one hand, you are arguing that 7000 Chinese troop presence in Gilgit Baltistan (and Indian installations mentioned in the countries quoted) from reliable Western sources is vague for you even while arguing that 1000 strong Pakistani presence in Saudi Arabia quoted from questionable Pakistani sources is reliable.Goldring234 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources are not questionable; Deutsche Welle is not a Pakistani source. There is no shortage of reliable sources, but it would be impractical to list them all for one entry. You keep bringing up the Pakistani battalion in Saudi Arabia, who are deployed in training capacities. They have been there since 1982. The German and British training units overseas are no different. The point is, the Pakistani government acknowledges it has troops in Saudi Arabia. The Chinese government says it has no troops in Pakistan. The New York Times article you keep quoting says nothing of a Chinese base. It clearly mentions Chinese army personnel who are working on construction projects in Pakistan. That is nothing out of the ordinary, nor is it the same thing as a defence (emphasis) related commitment, let alone having a "base". You're basically mixing apples and oranges. This is the problem with the rest of your arguments; you are synthesizing your own conclusions, while the sources contradict otherwise. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Goldring234:: The following three sources were cited for the Indian "base" in Oman: [2] [3] [4]. The first is a blog (which fails WP:RS) which speculates a "claim" (from a newsletter) that there is a listening post in Oman not listed amongst U.S. posts in the region. It then interestingly concludes/speculates that this "may be" an Indian listening post (without substantiating further) and outlines "several reasons that make this likely" (quote). The rest of the passage is about diplomatic relations, a 2008 defence agreement, similar posts elsewhere, advantage vis-a-vis Pakistan, and joint military exercises. Nothing in this randomly crafted piece gives away anything on a base. The other two links simply claim that Oman has given berthing rights to Indian Navy. This simply means that Indian ships can dock there. Again, practically nothing on an Indian base. This is exactly the problem with your entries, it is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d : Deutsche Welle article only mentions that 1000 Pakistani troops are performing a "advisory" role to riyadh and stationed in Saudi Arabia. Without even mentioning which base and whether the Pakistani troops are the principal occupants of that base. Based on your definition of a Military base which you cited earlier, this will fall short of it. The other Google sources which you are citing are vague enough without any "in depth" details, the criteria which you asked in the case of Chinese and Indian overseas presence. With respect to the Chinese troop presence in Gilgit Baltistan, The New York Times article and other articles I referenced clearly mentions that PLA soldiers and troops and 7000 of them to boot are present in Gilgit Baltistan. Whether they are for defense commitment or for construction projects is immaterial. Who are we to assume that the Chinese don't consider the construction of strategic projects with military significance in border areas as not part of defense commitment ?. There are articles in the Indian and Western press which clearly sees this as defense commitment and Chinese military presence and clearly state as such. With respect to the Indian Listening Station in Oman, that "blog" is reproducing from 'Intelligence Online Publication' which is a reputable western open source intelligence outlet.If you think that's not reliable, I referenced two more sources. Contrary to what you said, the two other links also talk explicitly about Listening posts.

"As a country that not only hosts some 700,000 Indian expatriates but also key Indian listening facilities, Oman is assuming ever-greater importance for New Dehli as an outpost..'

If that is not enough, then consider this as well which is even more forthright even giving the name where that listening post is located (Ras al-Hadd is the name where it is located).

You seem to think that oversees Listening posts, Drone bases, Radar Installations are not 'Military bases' and one hand using that term in a very restrictive way when it comes to Indian overseas military facilities and on the other hand arguing against the presence of 7000 Chinese troops in Gilgit Baltistan as not 'defense-related'.Goldring234 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

The Indian section does not name the bases, or indicate if they are principal occupants. Your rebuttals on the Pakistani troops are largely irrelevant, I suggest you review the UK, US, Germany, Turkey sections before repeating your arguments, and re-check these sources to establish their physical location. More importantly, I cannot find any sources establishing the number of Indian personnel overseas. This is in contrast to the Pakistani deployments. If it were up to me, that whole section apart from Tajikistan/Seychelles ought to be removed until we can find actual figures or proof of Indians serving abroad. Mar4d (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Of the Chinese troop sources you have used, this one by Ramesh is an opinion piece so fails WP:RS straight away. It also starts the article with the phrase "the claim". Bingo. The NYT piece you are intent on using says the following: "Many of the PLA soldiers entering Gilgit-Baltistan are expected to work on the railroad. Some are extending the Karakoram Highway... Others are working on dams, expressways and other projects." The article further calls them "PLA construction crews". How, pray tell, is a batch of technicians working on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor equivalent to a defence unit? Please note that WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS are a no-no on Wikipedia. This link contains nothing more than a reference to Indian army claims, so it's not even worth discussing. Finally, the widely ranging figures have no credible sources in any of those refs (the NYT vaguely quotes "journalists, human rights activists" etc.) and given the total Chinese population in Pakistan is 15,000, they appear highly exaggerated. Finally, I am not going to repeat back-and-forth the issues with your use of sources to make weak and trivial claims, containing passing mentions and claims. Wikipedia considers blogs and "online publications" complete junk. Please take your refs to WP:RSN if you think they are reliable. Mar4d (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I must also note that your account had no edits since 2009, and you suddenly appeared hours after my edit on this article on 8 June. You may be a disruptive WP:SPA for all I know, and WP:NOTHERE for anything other than disruption, and that's another issue. Mar4d (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d

"The Indian section does not name the bases, or indicate if they are principal occupants. Your rebuttals on the Pakistani troops are largely irrelevant."

The rebuttals on Pakistani troops are very much relevant because they expose the hypocrisy of your argument. The google search (Pakistani troops in Tabuk) you keep citing without giving any specifics is very revealing about the way you go about the whole thing. In which of those links does it mention that Pakistanis are the principal occupants of Tabuk base. Also many of those google links trace back to 2003 and 2010 . Where does it mention that they are still using it in 2017 ? Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"More importantly, I cannot find any sources establishing the number of Indian personnel overseas."

That should not matter at all to state the fact that the facilities do exist. When more information is available that will be included. So far we know from reliable sources that India has oversees military Radar installations and Intelligence collection Listening posts. That all that needs to be told. When more details in terms of personnel is available, that can be included then. Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"This is in contrast to the Pakistani deployments."

No they are not. The sources given for Pakistani deployment in Saudi are as vague and unreliable ( to use your words). They do not mention any details with respect to the personnel or whether they are principal occupants of any base.Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"How, pray tell, is a batch of technicians working on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor equivalent to a defence unit? "

Are you so naive that you can't differentiate between Civilian and Military technicians? Surely you don't think that the Military technicians are building for civilian purposes, do you? All of them are dual use facilities but primarily geared for military strategic objectives. If tomorrow the US troops operating drones from Pakistani bases are engaged in maintenance of those facilities and work on roads leading up it, are you going to argue that they are civilian technicians working on civilian projects?Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"This link contains nothing more than a reference to Indian army claims, so it's not even worth discussing. Finally, the widely ranging figures have no credible sources in any of those refs (the NYT vaguely quotes "journalists, human rights activists" etc.) and given the total Chinese population in Pakistan is 15,000, they appear highly exaggerated."

You can't and should not be judging what is right or wrong claims. That is pushing your opinions and biases. We should be just putting out what the references say. Both the Indian and Western press acknowledge the Chinese military presence in Gilgit-Baltistan. Precisely because both the Chinese and Pakistanis refuse to acknowledge this publicly, they have to rely on the "journalists, human rights activists" etc on the ground for details. Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"I must also note that your account had no edits since 2009, and you suddenly appeared hours after my edit on this article on 8 June. You may be a disruptive WP:SPA for all I know, and WP:NOTHERE for anything other than disruption, and that's another issue. "

Is 'disruptive' your word for someone trying to correct this article with more edits from reliable references. You think too much about yourself. Let me assure you that I am here simply to add more reliable information which I come across.Goldring234 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Goldring234: Please take some time to read this talk page thoroughly, and read WP:NOR carefully. The 'definition' issue has been discussed ad nauseam. While it was agreed that an absolute definition is difficult, consensus is that their existence is backed up by reliable sources stating that they are definitively known bases. Per WP:TITLE, this is a "List of countries with overseas military bases", not "List of countries with possible overseas military bases (dependent on how a 'base' is defined), and potential surreptitious facilities which may or may not fit the definition of a military base." Finally, read WP:NPA, and refrain from WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to reintroduce questionable content, as well as your communications with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Bases that are located on integral parts of a state

I will be removing bases that are on the list, but are just located on that country's territory. Overseas is in other states sovereign land, not the U.S. having a base on Guam or Hawaii (for example). Garuda28 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Before you begin, can you give an example of such a base that is currently on the list. Also note the introduction discusses this in the context of bases in overseas colonies (i.e. in the own sovereign land); so I am not sure the term is unambiguously defined. Example for the UK - would overseas bases on their British Antarctic Territory (disputed by many as British territory) be an overseas basis? Or would a Dutch base on Curacao (an independent country within the kingdom be recognised)? So perhaps if there is indeed a problem we should first clearly define what we mean here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloated list of Indian Bases

The list of Indian bases is bloated presumably to depict the country as an aggressor. While it can be expected that articles on geopolitics would have some Wikipedia editors getting biased, the list on Indian bases seems to have been systematically boated with persistent edits from certain Wikipedia editors who also redo edits of anyone else trying to update the section.

Here are concrete example of systematic abuse of editorial rights:

• The section mentions that 'Bhutan is India's protected state'. It is a significant mistake to intentionally alter a country's sovereignty on Wikipedia. In this case, the fact is that Bhutan is a fully sovereign nation just like India, China, USA etc. The Wikipedia editor that made this mistake cited an opinion on an obsolete Treaty signed in 1949 which has since been replaced. After an attempt was made to update this section, it was quickly undone by Gxxxxx28

• Farkhor Air Base, Tajikistan . The Wikipedia editor is referring to a rumour of an Indian Air Base at Farkhor. Not a single source cited claims to have witnessed any Indian Air Force presence in Tajikistan in the last 5 years. The sources cited refer to similar rumours or to an India-sponsored Hospital or road construction in the area. Since when does a hospital equate to an Air Base?

• Seychelles: This is a classic example of online fake news affecting real people's lives. The rumours of an Indian takeover of a distant island in Seychelles got so out of hand that it sparked local protests. This culminated in the President of Seychelles himself having to reassure his citizens that the Island had not been given away to India as a military base Some of these online rumours made their way to the Wikipedia article on Assumption Island.

• Surkhet Air base: The claim of Surkhet Airport being an Indian Air Base is as ridiculous as claiming New York's Kennedy airport is a secret French Air Base. To give readers an idea of what this airport is - it is a large public airport situated in Nepal's capital. Anyone can purchase an airline ticket to Kathmandu (Nepal's capital) and verify this for themselves. In defense of their ridiculous claim, the Wikipedia editor has cited four different online amateurish postings. One of these postings provides a photo of a random Indian Air Force helicopter on a random sortie to claim that one of the busiest airports in Nepal is somehow also a secret Indian military base.

• Confusing joint undertakings as sovereign overseas bases: Wikipedia editors have further bloated the list of Indian bases by including facilities for joint training or joint patrolling.

At this point, it should come as no surprise to anyone that some Wikipedia editors couldn't care less about the integrity of their postings. Moreover, they make persistent edits to make sure no one can undo their edits. Makes you wonder what motivates them. -Pratikus (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Agreed but no longer relevant to the page.

2. Agreed. Indian deployments at Ayni and/or Farkhor are unclear at best. The only claims that can reliably be made are to that India operated/operates a field hospital and it funded the reconstruction of the airbas(es).

3. Agreed and removed. There is no reliable source to suggest that India has a base on Assumption.

4. Factually incorrect but agreed and removed. Surkhet is ~400 km away from Kathmandu but there is no reliable source suggesting that Indian forces are based there. 2001:67C:2564:532:DDB9:5051:A528:6ACC (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy Not sure exactly how you can help here but I hope you are taking a note -Pratikus (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Pratikus Please be very specific of which edits you wish to do and get consensus for them. Talk page is for discussion with references. This currently seems like a rant to me. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Pratikus Adamgerber80, looking over the current article, all entries appear to be well sourced. Unless Pratikus is more specific with his changes, I don't think there will be consensus to change the list. Garuda28 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop undoing genuine changes Garuda28 without any rationale or objective critic. Garuda28 et. all You are welcome to present your reasons here on the talk page. I will raise a formal displute within Wikipedia otherwise for vandalism-type undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikus (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80, if the above bullet points were not specific enough for you, we cannot help you. You may very well feel like this is a rant...your feelings are appreciated however let the readers judge for themselves how specific this list is. Editors that do not have anything of value to contribute to this discussion or an article, should not feel compelled to do so. Also, please refrain from personal comments like 'you are ranting' when there is an issue (with a specific list and citations) that needs to be reviewed by genuine editors. There are some guidelines on this: WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. -Pratikus (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful with your edits. You are currently editing a lot of stuff based on speculation. If you wish to edit something I would highly recommend discussing here and gaining conensus since not a lot of your edits seem to have a consensus from multiple editors. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Indian air base in Tajikistan

I made a quick search on the subject to see what I could find, and found that there's been lots of speculations, hopes and plans, but there's still no operating Indian Air Force base in Tajikistan. And the main reason for that is that Russia won't allow it. For recent sources see Russia Beyond: "All these years the Indians have run into the Russian wall as Moscow has been unrelenting in its stand that it doesn’t want foreign powers to deploy fighter aircraft in its backyard and a former territory. The Russians have thus far steadfastly refused to grant this favour to its age-old strategic partner – India"; Mail Online India: "India refurbished the base in 2007 but could not base fighters and helicopters there because of Russian pressure"; The Diplomat: "There are no reports of Indian combat aircraft having ever been stationed at the base.” India forked out millions renovating the base at Ayni, only to be blocked from moving in by the Russians". Or to sum things up: there is no Indian air base in Tajikistan, has never been any, and most probably won't be any either.- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging people with an interest in this: User:Garuda28, User:Pratikus and User:Adamgerber80. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thomas.W, That is my understanding as well. A more recent article, mentions the India-Tajik Friendship Hospital and tit is often referred to as a military hospital and seems to be confused with Ayni or Farkhor air base. As far as the air base itself is concerned, the article states that When India was finally ready to proceed with making Ayni fully operational, Russia was having second thoughts. And during the latter half of 2007, Moscow let it be known that it not only opposed Indian deployment, but it also began pressuring President Imomali Rahmon’s (sic) administration in Dushanbe to revoke Indian access to the base. Pratikus (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W I agree with your assessment of this particular base. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W Okay. I dug a bit further in this direction. Here are more recent books which place Indian presence in Tajikstan. I am presenting quotes from different books "It also operates the Farkhor Air Base in Tajikstan" ([5]), "These have included a field hospital at Farkhor airbase" ([6]), alludes to Indian presence ([7]). Here is a book from 2017 which states, "the Farkhor Air Base in Tajikstan is currently jointly operated by Russia and India" ([8]). There are other books which state the ambiguity you present based on the references you present and state that India has no military presence there but does have a role in training, aircraft maintenance and language traning ([9]). Another book states that in 2013 Russia began talks to take over the base possible with in joint management with India ([10]). Now this assertion that in 2013 that there was joint Russia and India management is confirmed by the 2017 source. I believe the reality is some where in the middle and we might want to discuss if this merits an inclusion based on there are conflicting views. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Potential/Future bases

Do these have any place in this article? Speculation seems contradictory to the purpose to me. Garuda28 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Garuda28, mere speculation should not be included in this list. A purpose of Wikipedia (or any Encyclopedia in general) is to provide knowledge to the reader. For example, You and I (assuming we are both laymen) speculating on a future military base on our own would not provide any knowledge to a reader. So that should not be included in this list. Nor should any speculation from biased parties (for example traditionally rival countries) be included in this list as that would be speculative propaganda. However, when the Head of State of a sovereign country announces that there will likely be a foreign military base in his/ her country ..... that is knowledge worth mentioning. A quotation from the Head of State (or a named authority speaking on public record) is no longer mere speculation but is knowledge. And it is the purpose of an Encyclopedia to share it. I am assuming the entry related to a potential Chinese base in Azores prompted you to discuss this. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. The references for this particular entry include quotes from the Prime Minister of Portugal (the host country) and the Cultural Minister of the concerned Portuguese town. Garuda28 Would you say that is mere speculation or that is knowledge? That should be the litmus test to determine if it is worth including on this Wikipedia page. I firmly believe that it is knowledge. --mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Pinging parties with interest: Thomas.W any thoughts? --mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This would seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. I frankly do not think that it is notable enough to put potential possible bases, however bases with a lease or agreement signed for the future are fine.Garuda28 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Garuda28 here. This would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Please gain consensus here before making such changes. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Cam Ranh Bay

Cam Ranh Bay should be removed from the list of overseas Russian bases - Russia's lease expired years ago.

Cam Ranh is regularly visited by military vessels and aircraft from several nations, but it is not a Russian-leased, owned, or operated facility.

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/editorials/friendship-visit-to-vietnam/article_70666aa6-2315-11e8-ab2d-9779fe30c4c1.html http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/03/27/vietnam.russia/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I will remove it. Garuda28 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Format of bases in unrecognised / partially recognised states

Currently the description of countries for the UAE base in Somalia/Somaliland looks like this:

• Somalia (Somaliland)

I think this style should be expanded to all bases in partially or unrecognised states. The other states relevant to this article are:

• Abkhazia
• South Ossetia
• Transnistria
• Northern Cyprus

It makes the most sense to have the internationally recognised country which the bases reside in, e.g. Moldova for Transnistria, and then the partially recognised state in brackets following. Also the entry for the Turkish base in Northern Cyprus is absurd, as only Turkey recognises it. Following that style, you could change the US base in South Korea to "North Korea (disputed by South Korea)". So this entry and the three Russian bases in partially recognised states should follow the Somalia/Somaliland format, acknowledging both international perception and the actual reality that the internationally perceived parent countries have no control in that area. There are also the cases of occupied territory like Crimea and the Golan Heights, and autonomous regions like Iraqi Kuridstan, but those can be sorted out after the style for partially recognised states is. Doeze (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have some significant hesitance to doing this for states that have almost no or no international recognition, but am open to changing this view depending on seeing the arguments of other users. Garuda28 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That is true they have very little international recognition but Somaliland and Northern Cyprus, unrecognised and recognised by one state respectively, are both already mentioned in the article. The article definitely needs to mention these states as it is misleading otherwise, and a lot of readers may simply think Abkhazia and South Ossetia are just like any other district of Georgia for example, when they are really de facto independent. The article needs to differentiate between bases in partially recognised states listed under the recognised states and just regular bases. At the moment there is no style for partially recognised states with at least three approaches being taken and this edit would fix that. Doeze (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you be alright with mentioning their status in the text? I guess my biggest issue is using multiple flags, which can look quite cluttered and could be confusing (especially with Georgia). Perhaps in the Georgia example qualifying them as separatist regions? Garuda28 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would still give the wrong idea at a glance so it needs to be included at the start, and I don't think they can really be placed in the same vein as separatist regions because that likens them to the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, which really are just separatist regions as they are not fully established or stable, and are not at all recognised, in contrast to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Doeze (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I respectfully disagree with the implementation, but understand the why. I’m gonna see if I can think of any other solutions. Garuda28 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

UK bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia (and any other bases of a country within a territory of that country)

I removed the entry for the bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia or Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) because I believe they do not belong in an article that otherwise contains only bases of sovereign states located in different sovereign states. This edit was undone with the message:

'They are [overseas]. For one they are kept from the Republic of Cyprus for purely military purposes (Cypriot nationality law applies), and secondly BOTs are not part of the UK.'

I disagree with this, firstly because I don't think it matters 'why' they are "kept" from the Republic of Cyprus, just the fact that they are kept means they are not overseas, and secondly because, while BOTs are indeed not part of the UK, and the SBA are unique among them, the whole territory is largely administered by a branch of the UK government. A territory held by a country for the sole purpose of military bases is probably the least "overseas" as military bases can be.

If the consensus is to keep the SBA in the article then there should at least be a consistency, and a similar situation to this is a French base in French Polynesia, which already has information and a reliable government source about it in the article Overseas military bases of France. So it would be best if either bases like these were added to the article, or the SBA entry was removed. Doeze (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The intent is bases in other countries - not in territories or territory-like places. I support removal. Garuda28 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Eritrea

Opening this discussion as requested by @Adamgerber80: who requested I provide a clearer source for an Emirati base in Assab. The initial source cited was from a Bloomberg source which stated "..the U.A.E. has built a military facility at the Eritrean port town of Assab to support its forces." [11] , on further search there's also multiple other source which documents the same thing. [12] this is another source which documents satellite evidence. Reuters also claims "Abu Dhabi has a military base in Assab which it uses in its military campaign in the war in Yemen, located just across the Red Sea." [13]. Another source: [14]. A source which explains how Al Hudaydah offensive took off from Eritrea [15]. Also, not really a cited source, but I personally know people who were deployed to the Assab base from the UAE military. I've noticed my edits have been reverted more than once with two different resources. I'm not really adamant on adding this piece of information in this article, but wondering why oppose adding it when there's citations proving it? Please clarify your reverts. Thanks Wikiemirati (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiemirati: The sources you provided are not that great. These are largely analysis from random organizations and are bordering WP:RS. I used other references from BCC and Reuters to re-add the entry. In the future, please add a primary and a secondary source. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

About Israel, Golan Heights and the West Bank

As everyone know, since 1967 Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. having military bases on a land that is run on a daily basis as indistinguishable from the territory that is internationally reconginzed, does NOT mean having bases overseas. Because, if we do so, we will miss the whole idea of the meaning of the term "overseas", and mix it up with the other term of "occupied territories".

So i ask the Wikipedia community to accept my edit and keep it. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I added it as a joke because I thought the listing of Russian bases in Crimea (which is now gone) and Georgia (which remains) was wrong, so I applied the same logic to Israel. The Golan Heights is internationally recognised as Syrian territory, and for this article that qualifies it as overseas. Doeze (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Change: "The establishment of military bases abroad enable a country to project power" To: "The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power" The verb needs to agree with establishment, not bases. Establishment is singular, not plural. Radambc2 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing British bases

The British base section is missing Oman facilities:

>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman

New training base just opened

>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman

New port facility and logistics station opened

>https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-look-at-the-considered-locations-for-new-british-military-bases-overseas/

New bases being made in the South China Sea and Caribbean. (for future article edit once bases completed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: The UK has opened two new bases in Oman; one for training purposes (Omani-British Joint Training Base) and one for naval logistics (Duqm). Explanation of issue: This two new facilities are overseas military bases of the UK not currently listed on the relevant article References supporting change: >training base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman >naval logistics base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 13:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

About Chinese base

All the content I added has news sources, and I can find out about them on the Internet. Why do I always withdraw my content? Daboluo123 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For Pakistan, the article never directly says that the Gwadar port is a Chinese Naval base, but merely brings up the possibility of it becoming so in the future. For Sri Lanka, the article specifically denies that there is a base there, and the American statement deals with a future potential of a base - not a current one. This will require a better source to verify. Vanatu has the same issue - it is about the possibility of a future base rather than a current one. Bases on this list need to be current, not possible ones for the future. Garuda28 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

About Russian base

The Crimean Peninsula is actually controlled by Russia, although it is considered to belong to Ukraine. I think whether a base is in the territory of a country or overseas should be subject to actuality, not de jure. Daboluo123 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Currently Crimea is a disputed territory, as noted in the section. It would be inappropriate to remove it from its status as an overseas base of Russia while sovereignty is disputed. It is shown as disputed on maps on Wikipedia, and the article Crimea lists de jure sovereignty as Ukraine, but Russian administration. Until sovereignty of Crimea is clearly defined as being one country or another it would be premature to remove it from this listing. Moreover, the pre-existing consensus on this page is to list the Crimean bases of Russia as overseas bases. Garuda28 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding "definition and criteria section" in the article to define "overseas military base"

Issue: Reading through the talkpage above, its seems a lots of reverts and dicussion is mainly due to confusion and/or lack of understanding of the definition and criteria for "overseas military base". It might be clear to the regular watchers of the article. Large majority of readers of the article do not read the talkpage, including those who leave messages on this talkpage they might not read the whole talkpage.

Solution and benefits: Inclusion of a short section with a "clear definition" to serve as the "objective criteria" in the article will help clarify this for the readers, guide future editors/edits, make the maintenance of this article much easier, reduce the edit disputes on the talkpage.

Definition has been agreed long ago by others, I just inclued it in the article: Since the 'definition" has already been discussed on this talkpage above (see Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition) and consensus was reached more than 4 years ago, which no one has challenged or tried to amend since then, I have gone ahead with the inclusion of that definition in to the article. Subsequent discussions on the talkpage above have also provided the defnition of what is NOT a miltary base for the purpose of this article. Please review the article.

Most editors, while adding a new subsection in this article, usually click on an existing subsection and alphabetically add a new subsection above or below it. I have embessed hidden edit comments on top and bottom inside each nation's subsection to remind editors to read the definition first before adding a new subsection or a military base to an existing subsection. This will also take care of knee-jerk editors who don't read the article sequentially, and jump to add their edit, hence miss/ignore reading the definition.

Don't argue if you don't like my edits, just directly enhance with iterative collaborative edits: I have not added anything of my own. I just took others consensus/discussion above and summarised it. Still my edits might not be the best. Please do ahead and enhenace. I don't care even even if you rephrase everything I did, throw out some of my work, dramatically change my edits, or create consensus on entirely new definition (until then retain the existing one). As a reader and editor, all I care is that when I arrive on this article, I should be able to see a "clear definition" and an "objective criteria" to guide the reading and editing. If you do not like the way I have edited, please do not argue here because its an avoidable headache/exhaustion, instead please go ahead and directly enhance my edits. Thank you in advance.

Tagging the regular editors: I am tagging the editors whom I noticed above being the most prolific and long-timer regular participants in the discussions. These are the Iron lady Iryna Harpy (I wish the hero survior lady editor is doing great), the Military History Guzzler Garuda28 and the Mumbaicha Mulga Adamgerber80, pls add the article to your watchlist if not already done so. I do not know any of you before, just saw you here today, hence no ealrier relations or WP:COI. Their discussion above is the basis of definition in my edit regarding "what is and what is NOT" an overseas military base. Hence, they are best suited to review and directly enhance/rephrase my edits. I thank your all for maintaining this article in a clean objective way. Feel free to tag others. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

Removing Turkey and Pakistan entries which fail the long established criteria

Some of the entries have slipped through, those do not meet the criteria as agreed in the various discussion on talkpage above among several editors over the last few years. See Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition above, especially
"This list compromises military bases where there are official contracts for the use of territory in one nation-state by another nation-state exclusively, not ancillaries under a broader NATO (or other) agreement for use of a base by a non nation-state body under a cooperative agreement. I've removed the Afghanistan entry for Italy, but I suspect that there are more such entries throughout this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)"

These fell through the cracks, and do not meet the criteria for inclusion.

• Trukey in Afghanistan under NATO and its peace keeping forces elsewhere, need to be removed. Can other editors also peruse Turkey and verify the list.
• {{anchor| Pak))Pakistan in Saudi: none of the cited 4 cited sources say that Pakistan has a use of Saudi military facilities for the benefit of Pakistan. Pakistan merely moonlights its soliders as guards of holy muslims sites, trainers of saudi forces, and as cannon-fooder to fight Saudi's war with Yemen. See the quote from this source
  "There is a longstanding joke told in the Middle East about Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to fight its own wars. “Saudi Arabia will fight until the last Pakistani,”The punchline goes, in reference to the fact that Pakistani troops have long supported Saudi’s military endeavours ... Saudi Arabia is accustomed to buying labour that it deems too menial for its citizens, and it extends that philosophy to its army. There is always a poorer country ready to send cannon fodder for the right price. The military assault in Yemen is sometimes referred to as “the Arab coalition”, a respectable term for a Saudi-led group of combatants that, in addition to allies in the Gulf, includes forces from Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, as well as Sudanese child soldiers, whose deaths are handsomely compensated for with cash paid to their families back home. Saudi military leaders, feeling themselves too precious to advance too close to the frontline, had given clumsy instructions by satellite phones to their hired troops, nudging them in the general direction of hostilities. Where things were too treacherous, Saudi and coalition airforces simply dropped bombs from high-flying planes, inflating civilian casualties. This is how Saudi fights: as remotely as possible, and paying others to die."

58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Trukey was highly bolated list, full of troops deployment under NATO and UN as well as Turkish troops deployment in conflict zone in Turky's war with neighbors such as Syria or against Kurds in ISIS/Iraq/Kurd conflict, none of these are overseas military basis as per the consensus ont he definition among the editors. Please Watch Turkey and Pakistan entries in future. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent WP:POV bloating of Turkey's bases by now-banned editor ArtyomSokolov

ATTN: Dear Garuda28 and Iryna Harpy, please watch the persistent efforts by ArtyomSokolov and others to push WP:POV by repeatedly readding//vdandalising text to Turkey. Most of these are military presence, not bases, these are no "signed agreements for the usage or setting up of bases". The soruce cited by the POV pusher editors, itself says that Turkey has presence in 13 nations these "can not be called bases, many of these are just UN peacekeeping arrangements." See the translation of source (source-1). I have removed the following vandalism once again.

1. Albania: Turkey has merely sent troops, not established the base. The source cited by the POV pusher itself says so, see "source-1".

1. Iraq: Turkey has no base there, source says it has merely sent troops to train rival factions of fighters. Source itself is a Turkey govt owned newpaper, not an independent source.

1. Libya: only a specualtion (see Crystal ball), hence excluded.

1. Northern Cyprus, : Peacekeeping forces under UN arrnagement are NOT the overseas base. See earlier comments from Iryana

1. Somalia: Soruce clearly says its just peacekeeping forces under UN arrnagement are NOT the overseas base as per definition agreed by other editors earlier on this talkpage

1. Syria: turkey has no agreement for bases in Syria, in fact Turkey is supporting rival factions opposed to the UN recognised regime of Syria. Turkey has only sent troops to assist those rebels against UN recognised regime. This does not qualify as the definition of overses base.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

banned or not, I’ve reverted you so you can make your arguments here and we can establish consensus on the talk page for these specific cases, otherwise you’ll continue to be reverted (this page is no stranger to IP edit wars). Also, there are plenty of other states that have overseas forces listed that meet all those requirements, so there isn’t a hard and fast definition on this. Also we don’t use numbered formats for the lists. Garuda28 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan has troops presence in Suadi for training, not a base

ATTN: Dear all, and Garuda28, Iryna Harpy, Riddhidev BISWAS

Please watch the persistent efforts by editors to insert Pakistan. It has merely sent trianers and advisors, there is not agreement where Pakistan can use Saudi bases except for providing training to Saudis. I had earlier removed it. Someone reinserted it. Please review Pakistan's sources. Leep a close watch on text and people related to Pakistan and Trukey. Also see Pak does not have a base in Saudi. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan

@Eclipsed830: The unit you are citing is a U.S. military unit that trains Taiwanese pilots, which is different than any of the other training bases here, which are units of those countries that train in a foreign state. Garuda28 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: So we should keep Taiwan and Luke Air Force Base, but remove the specific unit? Perhaps the definitions and other examples are a bit too loose. It's the same exact setup as Singapore and Germany have with the United States, which is also listed on this wiki- "Singapore - United States – Mountain Home Air Force Base (training base);[46] Luke Air Force Base (training base)[47]" "Germany - United States – Aircraft training facilities at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico and at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. (training base)" Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eclipsed830: I’m fine with that. The issue with listing this unit is that it isn’t a ROKAF unit, but just an entirely USAF unit that’s mission is to train ROKAF personnel (rather than a true combined unit). Garuda28 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: I was commenting below and couldn’t;t help but note that you’ve made a number of errors here... For example you seem to be saying ROKAF when you mean ROCAF and you’re wrong about it not being a combined unit, all of the planes are Taiwanese and the vast majority of the pilots are too... Where did you learn the things you’re claiming here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict tag

@Inf-in MD: There isn't anything currently on that page related to the Golan Heights, so I don't see how adding a 500/30 restriction would we warranted here given the lack of conflict. Guettarda (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: you appear to have removed the section in the article but left tag on the talk page, please explain yourself. I’m having a very hard time coming up with a scenario where those actions make sense together and aren’t WP:POINTY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. There WAS such a section, which I removed, and NOW it doesn't make sense to tag the article , as the the relevant content is gone. BUT - if you check the history , you'll see this content was being edit warred over (inserted -removed over and over again) , so how do we deal with that? Inf-in MD (talk)

I assume by removing it when its gets added and dealing with any ensuing edit warring as such. If disruption gets out of hand page protection is generally the way to go. We seem to have a pretty clear consensus that it doesn’t fit the basic definition of overseas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I'll remove the tag.Inf-in MD (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bosnia

Camp Eagle in Bosnia has been handed over to the Bosnian Federal Armed Forces by the US. Also says so in the Wikipedia article this links to. 2A01:598:D828:1BE5:D825:8EE6:790A:9D05 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

bases in eritrea

can we add the iranian & israeli bases in eritrea? https://www.haaretz.com/2012-12-12/ty-article/.premium/israel-iran-have-bases-in-eritrea/0000017f-efe8-d497-a1ff-efe863340000 Bakheer (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese overseas bases

The presence of Chinese bases in Cambodia and Myanmar is not confirmed, as I clarified in the article. This is confirmed by other sources and noted by Wikipedia as well, as the pages of both bases (Cocos Island and Ream Naval Base) also say that there is no confirmation of the presence of Chinese bases. The only confirmed Chinese overseas military base is in Djibouti. Rigorosho (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)User:Rigorosho

Gwadar Port

As of 2023, there are no confirmed news reports that suggest the deployment of Chinese assets at Gwadar port. News articles and reports do note the possibility that the port could host military assets in the future.

April 2, 2018 "The prospect of the PLA Navy in Gwadar poses greater security questions" [16]

June 2, 2020 "Whether the Chinese naval base materializes remains to be seen." [17]

July 27, 2023 "Gwadar in Pakistan are the three most likely locations for a Chinese naval base to be established in the next two to five years" [18]

Zanonomous (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)