Talk:Operations security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on April 23, 2009. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Untitled[edit]

Why is this a disambiguation? Is someone planning to create the Operations security (CISSP) article? --Liface 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

US-specific?[edit]

The article text seems only to refer to the US - Admiral Sharp's nationality is simply assumed, for example. Unless OPSEC is a US-specific concept, this article badly needs globalising, so I've tagged it. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and in case it is a US specific concept, this should be mentioned! 131.251.254.89 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, and here's why[edit]

I am so tired of folks on Wikipedia claiming something is "too US Specific, etc". First of all...I'm pretty sure OPSEC evolved in the US military and unfortunately this article reads like a piece of US military jargon. Second of all, I'm sorry you didn't grow up here in the US, but that's just the way it is. We like you're places a lot too--I know I certainly do and would like to move to a few of them! I can't think of a reason I'd ever need to say something is "too <insert foreign-country> specific". Always try to turn the situation around and think of it from the other side's point of view--that's actually part of OPSEC right? I am a a technical writer with a security background...so I will definitely get around to fully re-editing this article for your review because it's almost impossible to read as-is! I have removed the US-specific banner... --MikeW

Well, then you should at least mention that it is a US specific thing and doesn't apply to other countries. 131.251.254.89 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yikes[edit]

This article is extremely hard to read because it's so jarring. MikeW is dead-on saying it reads like a U.S. military document. I was going to copy edit it, but I don't even know where to begin. I'm going to skip it for now until somebody with more knowledge on the matter sees it. Hopefully that will happen within the year. Fdssdf (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


A decent enough article[edit]

It's not such a bad article. I think it reads clearly and succintly. It's more of a stub anyway. I think the article has a good start with it's presentation and organization of concepts.

67.162.201.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

Simple English Page[edit]

Can somebody create a Simple English page for Operations security?L.J. Tibbs (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Million11x17.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Million11x17.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Secret[edit]

Women's Army Corps anti-rumor propaganda (1941–1945). Army women are hot! (Oh damn now everyone knows)

Yea it's funny talking "loose lips sinks ships" on wikipedia where foreigners and USA people alike have prolificly posted USA mil articles. Doesn't the USA contract to how many other countries for it's secrets - much demanded by those other countries? I hope she has good secrets to not tell ! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)