Talk:Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard

Timeline

I reformatted the chart, adding pictures of the MCPOCG's. Also added atimeline as a visual aid to help the article. Any suggestions on other changes that should be made? --Stoic atarian (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name change: capitalization per WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES

User:Neovu79 just reverted my page move. The explanation given was "Military titles that are also ranks are abriviated." My original explanation, consistent with WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES, was "Standard capitalization for common nouns (miltary title not used in direct address or immediately before the titleholder's name)."

I will assume that User:Neovu79 meant, "Military titles that are also ranks are capitalized." This is simply false. By this standard, all military ranks (which are all also titles) would be capitalized. This is flatly and explicitly contradicted not only by Wikipedia's style standards, but every style guide I've ever read, including the Navy Correspondence Manual (despite the Navy's massive overuse of capitalization in day-to-day correspondence). They are only capitalized when they are used in direct address or immediately prior to the name of the titleholder. See the style page that I cite. Whether there's only one person at a time who holds that title makes no difference whatsoever. (Some style guides, but not Wikipedia's, make an exception for "president" when referring to the president of the United States.)

Examples: (1) Michael P. Leavitt is the master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard. (2) Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Michael P. Leavitt addressed the audience. (3) John Smith is a master chief petty officer. (4) "Master Chief Smith!" shouted Petty Officer Jones, "I just made the promotion list for chief petty officer!" (5) Master Chief Johnson is the command master chief of the squadron.

I will leave the issue open to discussion for a few days. Barring an intelligible argument that demonstrates that I've interpreted Wikipedia's style standards (not to mention almost every other style standard in the English-speaking world) incorrectly, I'll move the page back (or request a "controversial" move on the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests page). Holy (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The rank of Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard is not only a rank, but the title of the position of office he holds. It is the only such rank in the Coast Guard that bares a positional title of the same name. As such it falls under both categories of WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES. The topic of this has already been discussed before in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. Neovu79 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the entire section on capitalization of the archive page that you cite. There was no final consensus and there was certainly no consensus that overturned the MoS. In the six years since that discussion, the MoS has remained the same. The policy is clear, understandable, self-consistent, and consistent with most other style guidance in the English-speaking world. The only text on that page that supports your notion that "titles" that are also "ranks" (a concept that was not defined or discussed anywhere) must use a different capitalization convention was what you yourself wrote on that page. (So, you're basically appealing to your own assertions in 2007 to support that very same assertion here!) It was not adopted as a convention.

Given your assertions on this page, let's analyze the issue in detail:

(1) I agree with your assertion that master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard is a rank. WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES apply to ranks. The capitalization rule is that they are only capitalized when used in direct address or when immediately preceding a person's name who holds that rank (or, to be totally exhaustive, in a reversed format like "John Smith, Ensign," which is equivalent to "Ensign John Smith," just as "Smith, John" is equivalent to "John Smith"). This is consistent with my examples above. Ranks are common nouns that are only capitalized when they are, essentially, acting as names or parts of names.

(2) I agree with your assertion that master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard is a title. WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES apply to titles. The capitalization rule is the same as for ranks (there's no distinction). Military ranks are titles. Everything I wrote in (1) above applies equally. Here's an example of a military title that's not a rank: "In the U. S. Navy, the commanding officer of some large organizations may be called a commodore. Training Air Wing 4's commanding officer, Commodore Robert Johnson, who was a captain, was the commodore of the unit for three years. Many commodores of the unit served for shorter periods." Again, "commodore" is only capitalized when it's used as in direct address or when immediately preceding the titleholder's name.

(3) Your creation of a separate category of terms which are both ranks and positional titles (or title of a position of office) is entirely derived from your own imagination. There is no style guide (Wikipedia or otherwise) that creates such a special category or uses such a concept that results in different capitalizaton rules. There's also no authoritative reference that makes any meaningful distinction (affecting capitalization rules) between ranks, titles, "positional title[s]," and "title[s] of . . . position of office."

(4) (1) should establish that ranks are common nouns, only to be capitalized when used as part of a name. (2) establishes that titles (that may or may not be ranks) follow the same rules. Does it really make any sense to assert that titles that are also ranks should be treated any differently (assuming you could even make clear distinctions between such made-up categorizations)? Holy (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

These are not just ranks. They are also the tiles of the position of office they hold which is why they are capitalized. I would normally agree with you in any other case when it pertains to ranks, but like the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard is a positional title not just a rank. The only reason I know this is because I use to work with the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, in the Office of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. Only the senior enlisted advisors in each military are the only people who share ranks with positional titles. All other ranks do not apply. Neovu79 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Neovu79, I'm going to be restating some of my points, hoping that you can understand and respond to them, and make a few new points:

(1) You have created an artificial category (and rule) that is not recognized by any style guide.

(2) If a rule states that a word with characteristic A is treated in a certain way (with no exceptions) and an item with characteristic B is treated in the same way (with no exceptions), then a word that has both characteristics A and B should be treated in the same way. MCPOCG is a rank. Ranks are common nouns except when used as titles leading a name or in direct address. MCPOCG is a "positional title" (your undefined distinction, but it works, for the sake of argument). Positional titles are common nouns, except when used as titles leading a name or in direct address.

(3) I recognize your experience dealing with this particular office. I sympathize with you in that it has given you confusion on this issue of style. I myself have been in the Navy for 25 years, including undergraduate time. I've been in many different units and have worked with many different organizations. I'm also a technical writer and editor. My experience has been the same as yours: I've seen absolutely awful writing and mis-application of style and writing standards, particularly in the area of over-capitalization. The fact that you personally witnessed people capitalizing a word does not make it right. The military is infamous for over-capitalization. And the bad writing—and complete ignorance of writing style standards—doesn't get better with higher ranks or larger staffs. I've seen ranks improperly capitalized more often than properly capitalized. "I just made Commander. Joe is a Petty Officer. The Master Chief is here. I recommend Jones to be promoted to Chief." It's everywhere. It's rampant. And it violates all style standards in the English-speaking world, including even the Navy Correspondence Manual. Lazy or ignorant writers tend to capitalize words that seem important to them. Librarians tend to capitalize library. Aerospace engineers capitalize rotation speed and coefficient of lift and power lever. I've looked at hundreds of incorrectly capitalized words just today.

(4)"Office of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy" is in its own category. Its treatment has nothing to do with the proper capitalization of master chief petty officer of the Navy. The best style argument for capitalizing it is that it is the name of a distinct organization, much like a company name or the proper name of a military unit (though I'm not completely persuaded by that argument). The reasons for capitalizing the name of the "Office of . . ." are totally distinct from any reasons to capitalize—or not capitalize—the included term, and they do not undermine the analysis of the issue with regard to that term. Many good writers and editors capitalize "the Office of the Secretary of Defense" but would never capitalize "secretary of defense" when it's not used as a title. Holy (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, the military does tend to over capitalize a lot of things. You don't say Joe just made Commander, you say Joe just made commander. It is correct to say, Michael Stevens is the master chief petty officer of the Navy, which refers to his rank, but it is also correct to say, Michael Stevens is the 13th Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, which refers to the office he holds. Neovu79 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

E-10?

I have checked every possible sourced and can find no mention of an "E-10" pay grade. Unless someone can point me to a viable source for this information I am going to change it to E-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStiv (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)