Talk:Airman's Creed

I'm of the opinion that the sentence "he has since been fired from his position" is superfluous, and that it implies nonexistent correlation between introducing the Airman's Creed and being fired from his position. Unquenchablefire (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no relation between Gen Moseley's resignation and the introduction of the Airman's Creed. Orihara (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to move closer to NPOV

I read this page while looking over the Wikipedia articles on several of the creeds that are used by the US branches of service (the Rifleman's creed of the USMC, the Army creed, and the Sailor's creed. This wording of this article stuck out as not in keeping with Wikipedia style and NPOV.

I've done a few minor wording changes that, I hope, respect the intent and passion of earlier writers, while shifting the articles style closer to Wikipedia standards. I'm sure my efforts can be improved on further.

A few specifics:

• The statement that Moseley was fired soon after implies a cause an effect relationship. However, no evidence of that relationship is presented.
  • The Wikipedia article on T. Michael Moseley states that he "resigned as Air Force Chief of Staff on 5 June 2008 in the wake of a report that criticized the service's handling of nuclear weapons security related to the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident and a misshipment of nuclear missile components to Taiwan.[2] [3] Following his resignation, General Moseley continued to serve as Chief of Staff of the Air Force until his official retirement ceremony at Bolling AFB, Washington, DC on 11 July 2008.[4]".
  • Thus, the original sentence--that he was fired shortly thereafter---could be at least misleading, and possibly even false (based on what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia, with cited references), so I removed it. The focus of the article should be the creed itself, not General Moseley. (However, it might be reasonable to add a "legacy" section to the article on Moseley that points out that this version of the Airman's Creed is part of his legacy, with a link back to this article. That might be a nice bit of balance to add to the article on Moseley, which at the moment, mentions more about the scandals he was associated with than any positive contributions he may have made.)
• I replaced the sentence "The creed is fueled by the Air Force's heritage and a warfighting ethos that exists in all Airmen." with a quote from Moseley that reflects the same tone and spirit, but does not make a statement of fact that would be difficult to support with evidence:
  • Can we be sure that there is not even one __single__ airman, albeit one that probably should be separated from the force--that does not share the warfighting ethos?
  • Instead, I used this sentence with a quote from Moseley: The creed is fueled by the Air Force's heritage and, in the words of Moseley, "the warfighting-focused culture, conviction, character, ethic, mindset, spirit and soul we foster in all Airmen".
  • Making this a direct quote from Moseley moves this closer to NPOV, while still retaining a reference to the warfighting spirit. Note that Moseley's own wording is carefully chosen to indicate that instilling the warfighting ethos in all airmen is a goal, not an objective fact.
• I removed the words "beliefs they can hold most dear". This is lovely wording that is suitable in a piece of persuasive writing or inspirational writing about the creed, but seems out of place in Encyclopedic writing.

[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pconrad0 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinionated

I feel this sentance

"...attempting to shove both past heritage and future expeditionary deployments down its members throats simultaneously"

is an opinion and should not be included. If it is factual and unbiased, it should be rewritten to reflect that.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request For Un-Deletion

I note that the Air Force Anthem "The US Air Force" is still an entry in the Wikipedia. Therefore the "Airman's Creed" remains a valid entry, as it communicates a similar aspect of the US Air Force. Deletion of this article is as wrong as deletion of the article for the Air Force Anthem "The US Air Force." This article addresses a major aspect of the United States Air Force and therefore should not have been deleted. Size does not matter, there are much shorter articles. Tcassidycurtis (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This creed is so retarded. It is nothing but fluff with no substance. Airmen are warriors, but can't PT during duty hours, or go to the rifle range. It is stupid. It is indicative of the type of "image" work the AF is trying to convey, but has zero bearing on reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.198.5 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Airman's Creed is what it is: it was crafted with an intent similar to all other creeds and anthems of all other services. Fluff? Perhaps, but there is a message that can be read by one who wishes to do so. As far as PT during duty hours, it is in fact currently manditory. Yes, Airmen (men and women) are not only permitted, but are also required to participate in PT, yes, during duty hours. This policy was implemented around 2003 or so. Even Civilian Employees of the Air Force are welcome to participate either with their units or on their own. Three hours per week are allowed to Civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcassidycurtis (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With the rewrite of AFI 10-248, 1 Jan 2010, PT is no longer manditory during normal duty hours and is the responibility of the individual Airman to participate three times weekly. Regarding the creed itself, one must wonder why it doesn't incorporate the Air Force Core Values of Integrity first, Excellence in all we do, and Service before self. After all, a creed is to be based on one's most highly held beliefs. This creed, sadly, seems to be based on a single romanticized vision of what members of our Air Force should be in the author's mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.70 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airman's Creed. 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/20070430060157/http://www.seymourjohnson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123050352 to http://www.seymourjohnson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123050352

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)