|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, and here's why
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
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
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.
Simple English Page
File:Million11x17.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|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
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.
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)