Talk:Secretary of the Navy (U.S.)

This article has to be renamed so that a country is stated in the title. We have already been through these discussions on the Forum. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:32, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Handling the incumbent

Since I saw a note about removing the Winter material, but not a link to a new page, I created a tab for "incumbent". For articles that speak specifically about the responsibiities of a position, it seems reasonable to use subtabs:

• for the previous occupants of the post, as was done for Chief of Naval Operations,
• for the incumbent, as I am testing here.

These both seem user-friendly ways of putting relevant background information into an easily accessible form. They also remind future authors of information that needs to be kept current, which might be less likely if there were only a separate page titled for the individual's name and a link somewhere in the text.

With this method, which I regard as a text, an author that saw a piece of information relevant to the "secretary of the navy" could quickly decide if it is relevant to the position or a person,and then know where to go to put the information.

I would not suggest using "incumbent" in articles that are principally about organizations rather than positions in the organization, although Related Articles might be a way to organize this information.

Again, this is an experiment in presentation. Nothing is lost, while I did not immediately see to where the Winter material moved, just that it had been deleted.

There do seem to be differences of opinion about the use of subtabs versus main page content. I believe, for example, in having, in the main article, only references/footnotes for inline citations; general reading, with no specific section to which it applies, seems more logical at a biblography or external links tab/subpage, with annotation. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:54, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

in this case the info on Winter says zip about the Navy Department--it's all about his previous career. Whatever is known about his career at Navy is not included, so it seems best to move the bio to its own page. That has the advantage of keeping the Winter entry when the Navy gets a new Secretary in Jan 2009. As for bibliography, people interested in a short article will perhaps want a short guide to further reading. I see no need for a long bibliog on this article for there is already a long bibliog at US Navy that caters to advanced users. Richard Jensen 04:19, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Winter's biography is quite relevant, both as a former DARPA official and as an executive of a major defense contractor. They demonstrate substantial background with the Department of Defense. While I have no reason to believe that he has any conflict of interest issues, it is a normal part of disclosure to talk about any relationships that might affect his present job, such as the possible need to recuse himself from any procurement decisions that affect TRW.

Keeping the information about Winter on a tabbed subpage leaves it accessible. When he is replaced, it would be entirely appropriate to move his bio either to a standalone page, or, perhaps, an article with a full list of former Secretaries of the Navy.

I did not propose a long bibliography here. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:31, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

the relevance is not presented in the puff-job copied directly from Webster's PR. we have to be a little more critical. One sentence that said Bush appointed an engineering executive with defense firms, with little Pentagon experience, would suffice. Richard Jensen 15:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

I'm afraid I find this your comment coming across as dismissive and judgmental. "Puff job?" The bio, indeed copied, showed he had been a senior manager in DoD, and also in a technically-oriented executive, is hardly puffery. You seem to be suggesting he is unqualified. If so, document it; don't make little editorials unless you have firsthand experience.

On the other hand, "little Pentagon experience", comes across as other than objective work experience, unless you focusing on the trivial point that DARPA's working offices, the last time I looked, were on Wilson Boulevard, maybe a mile from the Pentagon? Further, defense industry experience can be a high qualification, although some have indeed abused it. Offhand, I'd rather have a Ben Rich or an Edwin Land in a senior Pentagon slot than someone who either was a major political contributor, or spent their time in an essentially administrative job. The man does have a relevant doctorate, which should address concerns about people who are not "real scholars" being able to contribute any serious discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:44, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

I read the PR piece and it does not say what Winters ever actually did in industry. He started off as a scientist, with a solid PhD, but hey, I know lots of Phd's myself and most of them can't run a department. :) I read his confirmation testimony before Congress--which came after weeks of intense briefings by the Navy--and he confesses ignorance over and over (or else he is deliberately stone-walling). He never gives a single idea and appears in a very bad light indeed. Gates he is not. Why he was selected by Rumsfeld is a mystery.

Fine. Why don't you put your concerns in a signed article, or perhaps cite journalists or analysts that agree with you about the testimony, rather than sniping here? I'd rather spend my effort on contributing new content and researching material that continue to deal with your annoyances about what appear to be fairly trivial matters.

Incidentally, I also know a lot of PhD's, and many of them neither can manage, nor build consensus. Did you have a particular point, or shall we move on? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:14, 1 June 2008 (CDT)