Talk:Military expression

Citation needed tags throughout the article, following citations
If one wants to tag such things, one SHOULD discuss them here, rather than slap a tag on and NOT explain it, which creates greater effort to correct the article! From MY briefings, both given AND given to others, during my military career, a commissioned officer may not disparage the president or his/her orders, period. Both enlisted and commissioned officers MAY speak in public IF they do not mention their military affiliation or wear articles of uniform, which would then imply their military affiliation. Even THEN, if they disparage their chain of command, they would then potentially suffer action for insubordination. Beyond those rather few limitations, free speech is STILL present, only narrowed in the few specified areas that are necessary for proper operation of the military (as in respect for one's senior officers and non-commissioned officers in one's chain of command and respect for the National Command Authority).Wzrd1 (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A citation that says "See also Congressional testimony of May 14, 2008" is utterly useless. The "Full citation needed" tag was a gift. (IOW, the cite should have been deleted.) Same thing with "United States v. Voorhees". (I tagged because I did not wish to carry the originator's water.) Again same with "See Mother Jones article for numbers." What garbage! Discussion of such tags is not needed.
 * Nevertheless, your point about limited freedom to speak within the military is helpful. E.g., there are limits. For Wikipedia purposes, an actually helpful discussion of the subject is needed. To explain, the limited freedom to speak does not allow insubordination. Officers are commissioned as "office holders" serving their superior (the Commander in Chief) and they do not (as office holders) have "freedom" to speak against him. Congress has the Constitutional authority to set the rules for governing the armed forces -- which it has done through the UCMJ. And the UCMJ sets restrictions on the freedom to express. The idea that there is a right to "military expression" is (purely?) the invention of Mike Lebowitz -- but that is a subject of debate for the secondary sources. For now the article can stand as a stub -- with hopes that the subject, properly defined, will be helpful. --S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Military expression tagging (transposed from talk page)

 * The following was transposed from my talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious regarding your tagging of the Military expression entry. There was no mention in the talk page there to explain the rationale. If I know the flaws, I can help correct them. As two tags were placed on the article without discussion, I'm unable to correct any POV or neutrality errors present, as I really don't see much of either, only cited (without URL) statements. It might be my perspective, as I'm relatively recently retired from the military, so I may not see things in the same "color" as those who were not so long in the military, regarding freedom of expression and unique limitations enforced in that unique environment.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When I tagged the article, my editor's note mentioned Mike Lebowitz as the major source for the theory. Having my doubts, I tagged various citations was requiring verification, elaboration, etc. (IMHO, the article is Lebowitz's own promotional piece.) The article has had 11 views in the last 90 days, which verifies that I was never expected much response to my tags. [Correction: the Talk Page had 11 views; the Article page has much more.] But they have served their purpose -- you have looked and made comments. (Thanks!) The article -- if it really is a noteworthy subject -- needs improvement. But if I undertook to improvements, I would be spiffing up an article about which I had serious doubts. I did not want to inject my POV either way -- promotionally or disparingly. So the tags were the only neutral COA I saw. Now that the article has attracted your attention, I'll add to the discussion you have started. (Again, Wizard, thank you.) Finally, I will copy & paste these remarks to the article talk page. Please do not respond here. --S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed fully on all points. Thank you for your information, as time allows, I'll contribute to fully give balance to reality, rather than a POV. Your input has narrowed the lanes of fire for remediation of flaws that were not quite apparent to me. The ARTICLE is valuable for military recruits entering service, who may well be guided into legal issues if a POV or incorrect view was espoused. THAT was my primary concern, my lesser concern was that of the populace being driven to an incorrect opinion of the rule of the "Empire" or some other absurd view. Frankly, I chanced upon THIS article from the first amendment article, at a tangent, noticing the military article, then tabbing it and considering it, when time allowed. As this DOES impact people considering a military career, from a retired non-commissioned officer standpoint and considering REALITY, I'll try to flesh the article out properly, based upon the prior prose.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, served as an NCO. So your editing efforts will be appreciated. FYI, there was a very recent story on CNN (I believe) about a Marine who had posted various comments on Facebook. Among other things, he said he would not obey the orders to the President. The story also said he revised his comments to say he'd never obey illegal orders from the President. (Of course not! He must have paid some attention to the JAG briefing.) The news program consultant interviewed (correctly) said Sgt. So-and-so did not have the right to speak as he did. (I paraphrase.) He's about to be chaptered out. (Lucky they didn't GCM him.) The real, unspoken, story is that his NCO's didn't properly mentor him. It was really a "Sergeant's Business" matter -- how it got on the news is beyond me. (But I have only rudimentary Facebook skills.) If this theme can be woven into WP, it will be a real contribution. --S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy or lobbying group template and neutrality template applied to this page
Can we have input on the rationale behind both templates? They were applied with no comment on the talk page to justify the application, hence are without input, consensus or justification. If a flaw is found and discussed, it can be corrected. Correction of POV or input without input leaves all in a vacuum.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I think the article is presented only to promote Mike Lebowitz's theory. No other WP:RS supports it.--S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Military expression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071123235218/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil:80/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/moran.html to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/moran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)