Talk:Mark Milley

Untitled

Does anyone care that he was just confirmed as the Army Chief of Staff? This has to be one of the weakest Wiki articles for someone who's about to be the highest ranking Army officer in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.235.193.219 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• A different point is that neither Army Chief of Staff (CSA) nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) are the highest "ranking" officer in the US. There are several 4 star officers in all the US military branches. The positions of CSA and CJCS are not ranks; they are positions.Meyerj (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The comment said "highest ranking Army officer," which is absolutely true. By definition, the CSA is the senior general in the U.S. Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.34.132 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

incorrect undergraduate major name

There is no such thing as a "political science" degree at Princeton. The university has a department of "Politics" (see http://www.princeton.edu/politics/ ) and that is what the degrees that it grants are called as well. Just because his .mil biography says "political science" does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.140.13 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark A. Milley. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906014951/http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/GEN_Milley/GEN_Milley.htm to http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/gen_milley/gen_milley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906014951/http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/GEN_Milley/GEN_Milley.htm to http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/GEN_Milley/GEN_Milley.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

CJCS nomination

Fox News and Washington Post report Mark A. Milley is nominated to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), for a 4 year term, beginning 2019. But Gen. Dunford is expected to serve his full term as CJCS. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

That the protesters were peaceful is pertinent

That's in fact the most notable part. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, simply put, and have restored the content. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This section needs to be modified to show the news surrounding the event was partisan propaganda, or fake news. The narrative given never happened according to CNN and the subsequent investigation. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/09/politics/park-police-lafayette-square-protesters-donald-trump-bible/index.html

Article linked to from Reddit

• This article was linked to from reddit today on a particularly popular subreddit. The top comment calls out inaccuracies/editorializing in the Vice article, which Wikipedia repeats in this article, and which at face value seem to not be supported by the actual study. Between American Politics, BLP, and the fact that there doesn't appear to be consensus on the reliability of Vice Media, this feels like enough of a minefield that I'm not sure I want to wade into it myself, but I thought I'd start by pointing this out and seeing what others' opinions on this is. Arathald (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering adding a new sub heading for U.S. Army Chief of Staff

Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

Considering adding content that I think would be useful to readers to capture his time and initiatives as Chief of Staff of the Army, including the stand up of Army Futures Command, the establishment of Security Force Assistance Brigades, the adopting of the "Pinks and Greens" uniform and the Army Combat Fitness test. Will post them here shortly.

Cmwitten (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

/* Military career */ updated the section to include a subsection with information from his time as Chief of Staff of the Army.

Greetings and salutations. Just submitted an edit to create a new subsection providing a little more detail on his time as Chief of Staff of the Army I think would be helpful and of interest to readers. --Cmwitten (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

When is he obliged to leave?

His four year term as CJCS would end in September 2023 but his 64th birthday (past which he needs rarely-given special authorization to continue) is over a year before that. Which statute takes precedence? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory retirement age is 62 for non-general officers and flag officers. For general officers/flag officers, mandatory retirement is 64. For lieutenant generals/generals and vice admirals/admirals, the retirement age can be waived to 66 by the secretary of defense or 68 by the president.

Presumably, Milley's term will end in September 2023 unless the secretary of defense doesn't waive the retirement age, or Milley declines a waiver.

"Retirement for Age and Years of Service: Federal Law".

Billmckern (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What did he do as a company grade officer (2LT,1LT, CPT) ???

What were his assignments as junior officer? What did he do to prepare for higher command? As written the article makes him sound like a "political" individual with more connections than experience.67.177.167.25 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Changs Sen. Marsha Backburn to Blackburn Chrisarasmussen (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Y done. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reframing to suggest treason

I disagree with Normchou's edits that appear to reframe this matter to suggest Milley might have committed treason, as exemplified by the inclusion of Rubio's letter baselessly suggesting Milley may have shared classified information with his Chinese counterpart, which reflects an emerging treason narrative promoted by Trump and his allies. The edits seem to me to deflect from the essential facts. I suggest that reframing be rolled back. soibangla (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:NPOV. Other editors are free to include viewpoints w/ RSes that suggest he has not committed treason (if such viewpoints exist). Also, per the RSes cited, it was not a baseless claim. In the realm of strategies, surprise is one of the principles of war, so leaking such information to an enemy is indeed leaking classified information (and even worse). Normchou ^💬 03:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

So you acknowledge you are suggesting treason and asserting it's NPOV, while suggesting that other viewpoints might not exist? Hmm. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, per the RSes cited, it was not a baseless claim. Where? soibangla (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If other viewpoints exist, they can be duly included w/ RSes to achieve NPOV. Your censoring a significant viewpoint is not the correct way to do this. Also, please WP:AGF when reverting others' contributions. Normchou ^💬 15:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with your approach to reframe this topic to insinuate treason, which does not reflect the overwhelming majority of RS reporting, but rather a distinctly partisan POV, and I suggest it is approaching BLP vio territory. And now you've restored that narrative while incorrectly asserting it has not been disputed. soibangla (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

What?? I merely made improvements by (1) providing a separate subheading as the back-channel contact originally happened in October 2020, not part of the "events after 2020 election", and (2) adding the full name and affiliation of the Chinese general in question. I can't understand where your anger or "vehemence" came from, but it appears that you are actually the one who is pushing a partisan narrative (via censorship) instead of sticking to NPOV. Normchou ^💬 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The October 2020 call is not remotely close to the central thrust of the RS reporting. You made it so here, first by creating the subsection heading, then featuring a letter from a partisan politician, all the while insisting it's NPOV. soibangla (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The paragraph you reverted/censored was taken directly from the Washington Post, the very RS reporting you were talking about. You just can't look at your own biases or realize the inconsistency in your edits and arguments, can you? Normchou ^💬 16:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the content cannot be included here. I am arguing it is not the central thrust of the topic as you have made it. And I encourage you to refrain from casting aspersions upon me while simultaneously lecturing me about AGF and edit warring while incorrectly insisting your content has not been disputed on Talk. soibangla (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In mid-October 2020, top Pentagon officials grew concerned about intelligence they'd seen. It showed the Chinese were consuming their own intelligence that had made them concerned about the possibility of a surprise U.S. strike against China...Esper directed his policy office to issue a backchannel message to the Chinese to reassure them the U.S. had no intention of seeking a military confrontation. The message: Don't over-read what you're seeing in Washington; we have no intention to attack; and let's keep lines of communication open...These backchannel communications were handled a couple of levels below Esper, one of the sources said. U.S. officials involved thought the Chinese received the initial message well. Milley followed up later in the month with a call to his Chinese counterpart to reiterate the message, two of the sources confirmed.[1]

Would you like to reconsider your approach? soibangla (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Now Rubio baselessly asserts Milley told Li that Trump "wasn't stable." Should Rubio be considered credible for inclusion in this article?[2] soibangla (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Esper's successor, Chris Miller, confirms Milley got his permission for the second call. So much for the "rogue secrecy" narrative, eh?[3] soibangla (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you both have good points, have added some detail from the Axios article. Rauisuchian (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RS documentation and commentary/opinion is fair game, just as long as it doesn't become a longer COATRACK violation. There must be no insinuation of treason by Milley. Both Rubio and Trump accused Milley of possible treason, and we can document their opinions. We should also include commentary which places their views in context, IOW baseless political attacks that show disdain for national security and Milley's primary obligation to the Constitution.

Milley's actions were based on his obligation to follow and obey the Constitution before a rogue president who has no respect for the law, Constitution, or that votes, not violence, is how we decide elections in the USA. Milley saw a rogue president possibly planning a coup that might include military attacks on China (and maybe other nations), so he made sure that the Chinese understood the situation. "Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict." Milley was not alone in his concerns: "Then-CIA director Gina Haspel said the US was 'on the way to a right-wing coup' after Trump lost the election."[4]

Milley is a hero who protected America (MAGA!) from a domestic threat. He swore an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump, and did what he was supposed to do. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..." George Takei spoke plainly to Trump: "As Commander-in-Chief, he is sworn to protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. You, sir, are the latter."[5] -- Valjean (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Everybody just stop. The text as it stands now is fine. Wikipedia takes no opinion on whether or not Milley committed treason or if what he did was heroic. The treason issue is decided by a court martial, criminal trial, or by lots of reliable secondary sources. The polemics and personal opinions about Trump, Rubio, and Milley are entirely irrelevant (and so is direct sourcing to Twitter). Trump's opinion is relevant here seeing as he was Milley's boss, and Milley was reportedly acting out of speculation of his potential actions. Rubio's opinion is also relevant here because he's the ranking member of the Senate intel committee. Biden's opinion is relevant as Milley now works for him. Including these views and attributing them accordingly does not mean these opinions are endorsed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur that the treason issue is decided by a court martial, criminal trial, or by lots of reliable secondary sources. Until then, 'treason' is an opinion, and should be covered as such. starship.paint (exalt) 02:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And there will be no such court ruling because the treason narrative is a joke. In fact, I'll be surprised if this is even brought to court because there's absolutely no case. Yet despite that, the treason narrative is being given a disproportionately large coverage. The current wording is not good by a stretch. It shouldn't be more than half a sentence, that focuses more on the fact that the treason accusations are coming from a partisan position. Something like "some republicans, including trump, have alleged without evidence that Milley committed treason" - citations, on to next point. best case, wikipedia shouldn't even be entertaining a conspiracy theory. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Valjean:This. This is the blatantly correct take on the situation. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Following WP:TPO, I did not remove this WP:SOAPBOX addition. However, please read ee WP:TPNO and WP:NOTFORUM. Please just do stop and let the dust settle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)