Talk:United States Secretary of the Navy

October 2004
This page makes no mention as to how the Secretary of the Navy gets his job. I assume that he is appointed, but by who? The president? The Secretary of Defense? This is a rather important piece at's kind of a weird nomenclature - 256 Google hits vs 200,000 for "Secretary of the Navy" - and the nail in the coffin is the big lettering at. I don't think any country has a "secretary" in charge of their navy, in which case just "Secretary of the Navy" would suffice. R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  15:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Served under" categorization
Since the Secertary of the Air Force falls under the Secretary of Defense, the former directly serves the latter. Thus should we list the Secretary of Defense at the time under "Served under" rather than the President? The military revovles around reporting to your direct superior, even though the President is more widely known and of course the Commander in Chief. Minutiaman 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. The DON is defined (in this case) more by the reigning President, than the SecDef. If I'm looking up something for encyclopedic reasons, knowing who the president is more important to me than knowing who the SecDef was to that SecNav. If that is important to me, then all I have to do is go to the SecDef article for the periods of time that the SecNav served and make the comparison. SecNavs and SecDefs change within one administration (and rarely at the same time).--LeyteWolfer 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates for Ray Mabus
Hmm, have a seemingly reiable source for each of his swearing in dates. Which one is correct? &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ray Mabus, former Mississippi governor and U.S. ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was sworn in May 19 as the 75th secretary of the Navy."
 * "WASHINGTON (June 18, 2009) Secretary of the Defense the Honorable Robert Gates, left, administers the Oath of Office to Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) the Honorable Ray Mabus during a ceremony at the Naval Support Activity Washington-Washington Navy Yard. Mabus, the former governor of Mississippi, is the 75th Secretary of the Navy."

I am the author of the Navy.mil article. As it was explained to me at the time of Mabus' June 18 swearing in, the previous swearing in was considered unofficial but enough for Mabus to make some decisions. As far as the Department of Defense is concerned Mabus was sworn in officially on June 18, 2009. Interestingly Mabus was sworn in twice that day. The first June 18 swearing-in was at the White House and then he traveled to the Washington Navy Yard for the official ceremony in which instance the then Secretary of Defense Gates administered the oath, granting Mabus all the powers associated with the office.DLibrasnow (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be phrased better
Reference this paragraph: "The secretary of the Navy was, from its creation in 1798, a member of the President's Cabinet until 1949, when the secretary of the Navy (and the secretaries of the Army and Air Force) were by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 made subordinate to the secretary of defense."

It's not incorrect, but I think it's misleading. The Secretary of the Navy was indeed moved as stated from a cabinet position to reporting to the Secretary of Defense. But the cabinet position of Secretary of War was divided into two positions, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, which also were set to report to the Secretary of Defense. There were never cabinet positions called Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Air Force, and the United States Air Force didn't exist in 1798.

The US Air Force was formed as a part of the United States Army on 1 August 1907. It didn't become a separate branch of the Armed Forces until 18 September 1947 with the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, the same law that created the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force.

Also, why is "secretary" in "secretary of the Army" not capitalized if Secretary of the Army is a job title? And "secretary of defense" uncapitalized as it appears at the end of the paragraph does not follow conventional usage guidelines.

Let me suggest replacing the paragraph cited with the following:

"The position of the Secretary of the Navy was, from its creation in 1798, a member of the President's Cabinet until 1949, when the secretary of the Navy was, by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947, made subordinate to the Secretary of Defense.

"The same act established the United States Air Force as a separate branch of the Armed Forces. Since its formation in 1907, the Air Force had been part of the US Army.

"The cabinet position of the Secretary of War, established in 1798 at the same time as the Secretary of the Navy, was abolished by the National Security Act of 1947. Two new positions were defined by the act, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force.  Both positions reported to the Secretary of Defense."

Given that this article is about the Secretary of the Navy, some people may feel this is too much extraneous information. If so, removing the parenthetical remark that I think is misleading could suffice.

This suggested wording also changes the plural "were" to the singular "was" and corrects what I believe are mistakes in capitalization.

"The position of the Secretary of the Navy was, from its creation in 1798, a member of the President's Cabinet until 1949, when the Secretary of the Navy was, by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947, made subordinate to the Secretary of Defense."

In both cases, I've also added "position of the" before "Secretary of the Navy" since the position, not the individual holding the position in 1947, was created in 1798. Some might say I'm being overly pedantic with this change and I don't feel strongly about it. PatrickBlaney (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Secretary of the Navy is not capitalized in the usages you refer to because of MOS:JOBTITLES. Wallnot (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I see the points your making and agree, but just a note going forward; if you believe changes to an article are improvements and are unlikely to be controversial, then feel free to go ahead and make those changes. As for the capitalization issue, I agree with you 100%, as do many other editors, but the guidelines were changed to keep in fashion with the latest style guide. Again, feel free to voice any opinion you have on the matter on the guideline talkpage, (referencing any of the numerous prior discussions, on both the talk page and it's archives, where others have also questioned the decapitalization issue). This is an issue not likely to go away any time soon. Welcome to Wikipedia 🙂 -  wolf  22:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)