I think describing a militia as trained is too restrictive. This definition is also convoluted. I'd advocating splitting #2 into two definitions, something like the following is more correct. "2. An army primarily comprised of civilians, usually formed improviso when called upon in time of need. Members may vary in level of training and competence. 3. An official reserve army, organized separately from standing army."
184.108.40.206 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
RFV-sense "an army" (i.e. any army), as distinct from "an army of trained civilians, which may be an official reserve army, called upon in time of need; the entire able-bodied population of a state; or a private force, not under government control." It's very plausible that "militia" once referred to any army, but I suspect it's now archaic in that sense. Citations will show... - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have a point. Neither in Merriam webster nor in Oxford--Pierpao (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia says "an irregular army". Perhaps that's a clearer wording. This alerts the wiktionary reader that the distinction between army and militia is in many cases subjective regarding the meaning of "irrgeular" 220.127.116.11 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)