Talk:United States Secretary of Defense/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vacancy

Is it correct (as it would seem from the dates listed) that since the initiation of the office of Secretary of Defense there have been at least five gaps during which NO ONE was Secretary, one lasting for a full two months? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK it is entirely possible for a cabinet seat to be vacant for a period of time, since the position has to be appointed and the appointment has to be approved by the Senate. -- Sekicho 21:49, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

I am beginning to think this page should be protected- theman50554

Over one instance of vandalism in more than a month? Most pages should be so lucky.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

question

According to the first paragraph, "Congress had passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945". Does anyone know what this means exactly? Was it a specific law relating to Marshall alone? Aviad2001 18:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Take your time... Gridge 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

Authority

What exactly is the role of the SECDEF; what authority does he have - there are some things that can only be ordered by the President. - Matthew238 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have clarified this with some information from the DoD website.--Windows ME 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Secretaries

Does Gates really belong on this list? There is a good chance he won't be confirmed with the Democrats in charge. He should be kept of until he is confirmed. Jayorz12 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC) The current secretary of defense has a dog named Baily and a daughter named Jessica Janota. She is rather fat but her dear friend Mrs. Man-of-sky helps her with her problems. Jessica crys alot about her weight and she also wants to kill Mrs. Man-of-sky for being skinny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.33.80 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sortable table

Is there any good reason why List of United States Secretaries of Defense by time in office was created as a separate article, rather than simply adding a column or two to the existing table and making it sortable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, your proposal would be tantamount to the deletion of every article in the Category:Lists of people by time in office. OCNative (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't actually make any claims about other articles, but even if I had -- so what?

Is there a benefit to excluding that information from this article? Is there a benefit to presenting that information all by itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, what would you do about Donald Rumsfeld who served two nonconsecutive terms? And future Secretaries of Defense who serve nonconsecutive terms? How do you add a column of cumulative time in office? OCNative (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • How do I add a column of cumulative time in office? The same way I add a column to any table on Wikipedia. I'd label it "total time served" or something like that, and present exactly the same information that is currently in the other article.
      This isn't rocket science, you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New Secretary of Defense...

Hello, I've reverted the edits of User:82.28.206.95 because even though Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as the new Secretary of Defense he has not be sworn-in as such but is expected to be so on Wednesday February 27th. After he is officially sworn-in you may change that information but technically Panetta is still the Secretary of Defense until that time. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"President(s)"

Currently, the table shows all Secretaries of Defense as only serving under a single President. Robert Gates was the obvious reason I noticed this, but MacNamara and James Schlesinger are also exceptions (I'm trusting the dates presented are right, it's possibly I'm missing someone). Considering that Robert MacNamara at least was one of the most important people to hold the position, this is probably worth fixing. I know, I know, I should fix it myself but I'm not familiar with table formating in WP. Anyone watching this page know how to fix the problem easily? --CAVincent (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• The list shows, if you read it carefully, which President the Secretary in question was appointed by, not serving under. Retaining a sitting Secretary, as Obama did with Gates, is not in itself a re-appointment as the commission of any presidential appointee states that he/she serves "at the pleasure of the President", regardless of who occupies the Office of President.RicJac (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Gates should show appointed by George W. Bush Andrew (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The list has "President serving under". This will confuse the average reader. It shows Robert Gates as only serving under Geroge W. Bush.--Joey (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Aparently the list description has changed from "appointed by" to "serving under" without the editor noting the slight differances. MacNamara served under both Kennedy and Johnson and the list should reflect this (by someone more acquainted with the formatting than me). RicJac (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I sort of changed it to show Gates served under Bush. Didn't do it exactly right though. Tiller54 (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

Susiarad (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This article in the news

Please see DailyKos. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Combine With War Dept

This article should be merged with the War Department article. It's the same department - just had a name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.195.207 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not. Secretary of War (which only controlled the Army) and Secretary of the Navy were the subject of a change in structure resulting in Secretary of Defense, with subordinates Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

New Secretary

Page should be updated to show Ashton Carter as the New Secretary, as he was sworn in today, February 17, by Vice President Biden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwkrager (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

To update the page to show Ashton Carter as the new Secretary instead of Chuck Hagel, as Carter was sworn in by VP Biden today, Feburary 17, as the new Secretary. Iwkrager (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done NiciVampireHeart 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United States Secretary of Defense/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

At the bottom of the page Categories: Defense is spelled incorrectly as Defence VeraLenora (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

In the living former Secretaries section, can you make note of the fact that Les Aspin was the most recently serving Secretary to die, as other pages for office holders with living former office holders sections make note of the most recently serving office holder to die if said person is different from the most recent officeholder overall to die.

2601:241:300:C930:9A1:A8B:B6A0:9A81 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

Landslide Reagan (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Dear Sir, I am undertaking a project and for this purpose, I wish to gain editorial privileges of the above page. Regards, Michael Hyde

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

The Picture of Secretary of Defense James Mattis is used at the top of this article, whereas the picture of Marine Corps General James Mattis (Same person, different position) is used in the historical table. The picture in the table should reflect his position as Secretary of Defense, not his position as a Marine Corps General.

Therefore, I propose the following:

--|[[File:Gen James N Mattis.jpg|75px|James Mattis]]
++|[[File:James Mattis official Transition portrait.jpg|75px|James Mattis]]
Sdcondon86 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Secretary of Defense. 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/20130507124537/http://odam.defense.gov/omp/Functions/Organizational_Portfolios/Evolution%20of%205100.1.html to http://odam.defense.gov/omp/Functions/Organizational_Portfolios/Evolution%20of%205100.1.html

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) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018

The current Secretary of Defense is retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Jim Mattis, who was confirmed and sworn in on 20 January 2017.[23] However, he submitted his resignation on December 20, 2018, effective February 2019, after failing to persuade Trump to reconsider his decision of the prior day to withdraw the remaining U.S. troops from Syria. On December 23rd, 2018 President Trump announced Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan will assume the title of Acting Secretary of Defense effective January 1st, 2019.

DefenseEnthusiastUSA (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears you just copied this from the article. Please read WP:ER before using the template again. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References

State of residence

There is a column in the table for the list of secretaries to record the state of residence of each secretary. That does not seem to be pertinent to the position of Secretary of Defense. Maybe we should remove that column? Comments? — Archer1234 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why? It seems like useful information, "pertinent" or not. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

Richard V. Spencer is from Wyoming not Connecticut.96.36.68.29 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC) 96.36.68.29 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Done per https://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=1001 Next time please include a source in your request.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

Note "The secretary of defense" is uncapitalized because "secretary of defense" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It is capitalized because the official title is capitalized, and when referring to the Secretary of Defense as the "Secretary", it needs to be capitalized because it is referring to a specific secretary, as you would capitalize the "Congress" because it is referring to a specific congress, the United States Congress, or the "Senate" because it referring specifically to the United States Senate. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this earlier discussion when I suggested consolidating these JOBTITLES discussions at Talk:Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Capitalizing_"Vice_President", but that may now be the "main" place to work this out. Or continue here also if you prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Office holder table

@Skjoldbro: I think the office holder table should be consistent with every other secretary articles, which the table I worked on was. The refs could still be added into the new format if that's the only concern, though the other tables don't have refs so I'm not sure where the best place for them would be. Maybe along the time in office? Emk9 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Emk9:, shouldn't the table be the one that is the best rather than the one others have? Because I feel like the current table is better, for a number of reasons. 1) It is sortable. 2) it is labeled meaning it is intuitive for all editors to edit it. 3) it is versatile, with easy possibility to add, change or remove certain parameters. 4) Colour schemes are automatic, no need for coding either party or when they are acting. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I agree that the sorting and ease of editing is better, but I think the coloring for the president section and the presidents spanning multiple rows is easier to understand at a glance and looks better. Since the table doesn't require updates that often the ease of editing seems like an acceptable trade-off to me. I'd also argue that using the more standard table format is easier for more editors to adjust since they won't have to learn the current template's functions, but maybe it is more common in officeholder articles and I just happen to have never seen it before. Emk9 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Emk9: I agree that it is easier to understand, however I feel like it is a lesser version, as it appears people wouldn't understand who was president unless there are big colours to show it, furthermore, I feel like it places unnecessary focus on the presidents, when the page is about the Secretary of Defense. The multiple rows also make editing harder, since you need to change their numbers whenever there is a new officeholder or they hold office for more than one president. I can see that, however in the last two years we have seen 6 people hold the position, so I don't know if I agree with there not needing updates too often. It is used on List of presidents of Guinea-Bissau, so you must have seen at least once before. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: The color part just made my realize that the list would be less accessible for color-blind readers, so I guess the current format is better. (Guinea-Bissau was just me reverting a vandal, I never actually looked at the formatting). Emk9 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Emk9: I guess you might have a point, never thought of that before. Do you think the current one also have problems in that area? Fair enough, thought I would just point it out. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: The current list has both a column for the officeholder's party and the President's party included with their name, so I'm pretty sure that should be fine. Emk9 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)