Talk:Mark Milley

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply

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)Reply

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.^{[1] [2] [3]} But Gen. Dunford is expected to serve his full term as CJCS.^[4] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

• 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)Reply

Agreed, the article is a bunch of political rhetoric. In addition, Milley claimed today that much of what has been put in the article is false

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

And how did he get awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge not once, but twice? I'd think that would be pertinent to telling his story.174.0.48.147 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article omits his entire career from 1980 to 1999. How did an Armor officer qualify as SF? Colbfi (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • That may be so, but there's still the issue that the paragraph on the treason accusations is unnecessarily long, and puts too much emphasis on what are essentially partisan political attacks. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
• @Valjean:This. This is the blatantly correct take on the situation. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Soibangla, this is an opinion based on an assumption. I have to agree with what the IP address said above, putting "too much emphasis on what are essentially partisan political attacks." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I hesitated to deliver a response (because I'm more used to making list articles), but I do feel this is an issue that should be debated. Several sources state this (as well as from viewing the actual hearings themselves), but don't a large number of Republicans believe that Milley cares more about his public image which distracted him from Afghanistan? Again, I'm speaking vaguely here due to lack to time to formulate a response. How far must partisan statements go before they are notable enough to be included in the article. I agree they shouldn't be included beyond single, smaller opinions, as that easily can degrade into a "wall of noisy text" that just lists down feelings, but if multiple Republicans assert that view, shouldn't that line of thinking be treated? I have read WP:NPOV and quote the "due and undue weight" section:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts."

SuperWIKI (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not simply some bloviating commentator. It's the defsec accusing the CJOS of insubordination to the CiC. That's a Big Deal. soibangla (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think some detail might be needed to support that. "Big Deal" is subjective and could mean different things to different contributors. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Miller is the former acting defense secretary accusing Milley of insubordination 9 months after the fact based on a book he hadn't read. He gave Fox News an EXCLUSIVE (their bolding) interview that was then cited by one RS in 5 sentences in a long article. That's not a big deal, that's a small blip on the daily news radar screen. The long article, BTW, talks about Biden, Trump, Esper, unnamed former officials, COL Butler, an unnamed former Pentagon official, Rubio, Miller, Psaki, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Pentagon Press Secretary Kirby, in that order. All of them had something to say, and WP is quoting Miller. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Miller was involved in the matter and reporting shows he appears to have a motive to deflect attention from his involvement. That's all I got to say on this. It's a slamdunk for me. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reinserting the direct Miller insubordination quote is the way to show that he appears to have a motive to deflect attention from his involvement? Hokay. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

SuperWIKI, I remember the accusation about Milley caring more about his public image than his job. I've been looking for it but haven't found it yet. NPOV: The Contacts section ought to summarize what happened, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," per WP:NPOV. I hardly think that quoting a bunch of tweets by Republican members of Congress,^[9] e.g., is proportionate. I'm pretty sure that many people have tweeted their support of Milley, and we're not citing a single one of them (not that I'm in favor of doing that). In my opinion something like this is enough of a summary: Milley's reported comments and actions were criticized by many Republicans, including Trump, with many accusing Milley of treason and calling for his resignation or firing. The demand for the AR 15-6 investigation is too ridiculous to even mention; it has one source, The BL (Corey Lewandowski has just been fired from Trump's Super PAC for groping a donor improperly—so there's a way to do it properly?), and a PDF with Army Regulation 15-6 (can't figure out why). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Treason doesn't seem to be only card on the table. I believe "bypassing the chain of command" should be added in some form to that as well. SuperWIKI (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you proceed very carefully here. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Soibangla: Having followed the above argument about the term very closely, duly noted.SuperWIKI (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Soibangla: Permission to remove my earlier comment? I feel so guilty for adding it now which is giving me the strong impression I can't add constructively to talk pages now. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

haha, I know well the feeling of I can't add constructively to talk pages soibangla (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Have added significantly to Mark Milley's lead paragraphs, but need consensus as to how to proceed on the generalities of Milley's term, particularly with regard to the issues that have arisen during said term. How do I generalize that for the lead without violating WP:NPOV, i.e. entering subjectivity.

What I have at the moment, much improvement and detail needed:

As chairman, Milley has faced controversy for his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as being chairman during a period of growing political partisanship in the United States.^[1]

SuperWIKI (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd hold off on that. The brouhaha has subsided for the time being, with the caveat that I don't follow right-wing media. Changing the subject: I noticed a hole in the time line of Milley's command position from 2008 to 2011. Any idea what he was doing during that time? Also, according to the cite I just discovered we had, he commanded 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry in Korea, but the cite doesn't say when. Any idea how to find the info? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

For holes from 2008 to 2011, try using the Wayback Machine to look for defenselink.mil archive links. They basically fulfilled the same purpose as the General/Flag Officer Assignments today. Unsure about how specifically to go about it, but searching Milley's name in all of that would require some time.

Alternatively, try the General Officer Management Office website. Go back to the AY 2008 thru 2011 aasignments and search for Milley's name. SuperWIKI (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Ideally, should such sourced comments on Milley becoming a "political general, etc." be included in the lead and article after his term has ended, especially when sufficient assessments of his tenure from perennial sources come out? Personally, what seems to me to be an obvious detail, Milley getting caught in an increasingly partisan political atmosphere, shouldn't be stated in the article until we have an overall depiction of it in several reliable sources, rather than in retrospect to telling but otherwise individual incidents like the calls to China or accompanying Trump to his photo op. Additionally, with respect, may I ask the reason as to why you removed the exact dates from Milley's commands that I added? SuperWIKI (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Political general: The U.S. military stays out of politics which is why Milley was upset when he became aware that he was being used for political purposes at the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. I don't know of any WP guideline that covers that, and I can't speak for other editors. My opinion is that if this was temporary (outraged outbursts by a few members of a party, i.e., 27 in the House and 6 or 7 senators), and I haven't found anything more recent than September 17, then we shouldn't put in the lead. Exact dates: Again, I don't know of any WP guideline that covers that. In other articles, it is customary to use month and year for recent events and just the year if the event was more than a year or two ago. (WP is an encyclopedia, not a CV.:) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LemonJuice78: Please stop adding word salad like Milley nomination was controversy due to Had Goldfein actually been selected as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would have been the first Air Force general to assume the position following 13 years hiatus of Air Force General from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman position following the retirement of General Richard B. Myers from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff position back in October 2005 and Army has dominated almost half of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman position. to the page. Is there a purpose to trivial additions like this one and these two, [6] and [7], you added earlier? All three are without an edit summary and in poor English. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Then there is also this edit centering a giant image on the page and earlier edits having been objected to numerous times like here and here. Doesn't look to me as though you are here to improve the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you conduct interviews?

Matthew W. Johnson Falling Leaves Duncanville-Dallas County Texas 1970 2603:8080:740E:49F8:11C9:F7FD:FBBC:682E (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SuperWIKI: Not really sure I understand you revert. Are you saying that only politicians are noteworthy enough to have information on their office in their infobox? Skjoldbro (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This, to me, is a case where for U.S. military personnel, the Officeholder infobox template should be used where possible for individuals who hold or have held civilian political or other civilian leadership office; I once removed the Officeholder template on Lyman Lemnitzer's article for that reason. Milley's military positions are already well represented by the s-mil template below the External links section, itself used by many senior military personnel (not all though, which I've been trying to fix, such as with John M. Paxton Jr.). The s-mil template is a more economical way to list Milley's positions without cluttering an already detailed infobox, which, if we give the Officeholder treatment, poses some danger. What if another editor goes "So long as we have confirmed dates, predecessors, successors, why not add Milley's three-star positions? What about two-star? One-star? Colonel's?" Do we apply this to every JCS chairman? What about vice chairmen? Maybe every senior U.S. general and admiral?

In my view, unless the above conditions are satisfied or otherwise necessary, the Military person infobox should be used for senior U.S. military personnel as it was meant for. There are former JCS chairman and historical predecessors who do use the Officeholder template, but they also held non-military civilian offices:

• William D. Leahy (Governor of Puerto Rico; Ambassador to Vichy France)
• Omar Bradley (Administrator of Veterans Affairs, the sole military holder of an otherwise civilian office [later became Secretary of Veterans Affairs])
• Maxwell D. Taylor (Ambassador to South Vietnam; Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board)
• William J. Crowe (Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board)
• Colin Powell (Secretary of State)

Unless Milley decides to run for political office or gets appointed to one by the President or Congress when he retires in September of this year, I feel that, noteworthy or not, using the Officeholder template on his article isn't appropriate. I did not mean to disparage or malign you in my revert, and agree that my original revert reason was not clear enough. I hope this clears the air somewhat, and might I just say, big fan of your work! SuperWIKI (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to clear things up, with this thorough explanation. I hadn't thought it all the way through, but I agree with your sentiment.

Thanks, and likewise. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article lists the various positions that Mark Milley has held, but there is no section on his actual combat record, how much combat experience does Mark Milley have? 2A02:C7C:E085:8D00:B17B:2159:9C76:D337 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know this is late but look at his awards dude, he holds two combat infantryman badges which denotes he has engaged in ground combat against enemy forces in two different wars. im eating cum (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Milley was recently awarded the Norwegian Defence Service Medal with Laurel Branch.^[1] Znuddel (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This would be a great addition if we can find this covered in reliable sources ( [[WP:RS]]). Unfortunately I don't think we can add it in if the only citation is from social media, in this case Twitter, or should i say X. TomaHawk61 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did Mark Milley remarry 149.19.112.161 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply