Talk:Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff/Archive 1

merge complete
this article is basically the same as the section in Joint Chiefs of Staff section about the Chairman, so its might as well to merge it and consolidate anyhow. 218.103.255.21 08:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

merge has finished.. propose this article for deletion and redirect to Joint Chiefs of Staff 218.103.255.21 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Result
This article was the subject of an AfD debate closed on 22 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

contact
i've heard that all the joint cheifs are Christian - which explains alot to me `smiles` kinda curious if anyone has an idea on a good way to volunteer my services to 'em... i really dont trust anyone higher in the political structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.3.63 (talk • contribs) 21:22, September 26 2006 (UTC)


 * Any one of them would appreciate your service I'm sure. If you're interested, just visit the nearest recruiting office. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

move
I propose a move to

Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

or

Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

.100110100 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, unless and until the position is called "Chairperson," I'd firmly oppose that. It is officially called "Chairman" and the article should be named that as long as the position is. BTW, technically the term "chairman" is considered to be gender neutral, so even a woman holding this position would probably still be called that. (Can't be sure of that until a woman is appointed to this position though; theoretically possible but to date hasn't happened yet.) 24.8.252.164 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Political post
Why does this article use Infobox Political post? Surely nobody considers this office a political post? I'm thinking that it is simply because there is no equivalent military post infobox, in which case, fine, we can leave it as is. Otherwise, it would be best to remove it entirely, lest readers get the wrong idea about the nature of the subject.  bahamut0013  words deeds  08:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I think there is some confusion about whether or not this is a political post because Congress has to approve it. But Congress has an incredible amount of oversight and control over the military... for example, the authority to promote an officer to a higher grade is derived from Congress, but that doesn't make every promotion a political act either. Note that I've done the same at the Vice-chairman's page.  bahamut0013  words deeds  05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel sorry for this guy not having his own infobox. I think he needs one. I can't find one that's exactly appropriate, but since the current occupant of the position is an Admiral, I'm going to try out the US Navy infobox. See what you think. Good thing he's not a General, because there is no US Army infobox (why not?). Rees11 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of different page affecting this one
I have proposed a move at Talk:CJCS. It would be to move that page and use the page "CJCS" as a redirect to this article. All are comments are appreciated on that article's talk page.  Ergo Sum  22:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Confusing information about pay grade
The intro of the article says
 * while serving as Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff/Vice Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, Chief of Navy Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Army/Air Force Chief of Staff, Commander of a unified or specified combatant command, basic pay is $21,147.30 monthly plus additional allowances. All pay for flag officers, however, is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule which is $15,125.10

So does the chairman get $21K or $15K a month? Is he a flag officer or not? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I read the cite: for calendar year 2017, CJCS pay is limited to flag officer rate at O-10. There is not source for the preceding statement about the $21,000 basic pay. Presumably, the author intended to say that the $21,000 is allowed but excepted by statute for 2017 to O-10 rate. Is this how you read it? Ergo Sum  04:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename
Should be moved to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not move a page, especially a high-profile one, without first establishing clear consensus. As for the actual move itself, the position is not called (nor is it ever referred to as) "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army." The actual name of the position and the only one by which it is ever called is "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." The occupant of the position is not the CJCS of the Army, but of the whole military. Moreover, if your intention was to disambiguate the article from its Jordanian counterpart, the U.S. CJCS has significantly higher page traffic than the Jordanian one and therefore should remain as "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" due to WP:COMMONNAME.  Ergo Sum  15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be the same as Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Anyway, the name needs to be changed. Maybe "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (United States military)". The current situation is like having a "President" page redirect to United States president article. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really. The difference is that "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" is a rare title, and the American position is easily the Primary Topic. There are many different presidents of nations, and so no one article about a specific nation is the primary topic in this case. It might not seem "fair", but that is how article titles work on Wikipedia. - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not that, its just too centric. Although I am not convinced, I am not going to pursue this further.Makeandtoss (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BilCat. Just look at the daily page views for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared to the daily page views for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Jordanian Armed Forces. We're talking about around 700-800 average (excluding recent outlier) versus 2-3 average. This is a clear example of Primary topic. The current name should remain.  Ergo Sum  16:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

New table
I was thinking that the table should be changed to the standard Officeholder table, as the sorting improves so you do not end up with four tables of the same person, after sorting. Below I have provided an example of the new table, thoughts? Skjoldbro (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
Early in the article there is this sentence:

"While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other commissioned officers, they are prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the armed forces; however, the Chairman does assist the President and the Secretary of Defense in exercising their command functions."

The obvious reference of the pronoun "they" is "all other commissioned officers" which leads to the absurd conclusion that they are prohibited by law from having operational command authority, which of course they have. To make sense of it the reader must re-read two or three times. Apparently someone chose to gender-correct the information obtained from the reference into something more politically correct. I recommend hewing to the reference's words for the reasons similar to those given for not renaming the article to "Chairperson..." If no one objects or comes up with a better solution I shall change "they are" to "he is" in the eventual future. Snezzy (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So let me go point by point to see if I can help. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding.
 * 1. So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest ranking military member in the military, but per the Goldwaters-Nichols Act it has no command authority.
 * 2. The Chairman is the official term, even though it is a gender neutral position.
 * I’m not 100% if I’m addressing what your seeing, but I actually don’t see an issue with the current wording. Garuda28 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the use of "they" is grammatically correct, because "they" is used in the context of the chairman being gender neutral, since a man or a woman can be appointed as chairman. Secondly, chairperson is not correct since the official title for the position, as states by U.S. law, is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Also, as defined on Dictionary.com chairman can be used as gender neutral, and it is referenced as such in the main article as being a person. I would not object for replacing "they are" with "the chairman is", for the sake of this being confusing, but speaking for myself only, I am not confused with the use of "they" in the sentence. Neovu79 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken edit of Goldfein
A certain user has been editing both this page and the JCS page to state that retired USAF Chief of Staff David L. Goldfein is now CJCS. While it's true that he was the top candidate to succeed Gen Dunford before being nixed in favour of GEN Mark A. Milley, he was never confirmed as CJCS at any point, nor today (he's retired). What further action should be taken? I have reverted his edits a second time, and knowing a third will result in an edit war, what should be done? SuperWIKI (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous Anachronism needs to be fixed
Since last September there has been a mention of the Commandant of the Marine Corps (and David Shoup in particular) being part of the 1950s/early 60s service rotation. The Commandant was not a full member of the Joint Chiefs until the late 1970s and no Marine ever served as Chairman until 2005 (when there was any semblance of a rotation it was always Army-Navy-Air Force). To say that there was any expectation of there ever being a Marine Chairman in the Eisenhower/JFK era is simply wrong. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)