Talk:Uniformed services of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Coast Guard in time of war

I'm aware that control of the Coast Guard passes to DoD in time of war, but I'm not sure if it passes to the Navy specifically. Also, which branch of government decides to transfer control of the service? Congress? The president? Both in concurrence? The way it's currently stated is ambiguous. For the time being, I'm adding the "citation needed" tag. --Impaciente 03:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides the seven services listed, why aren't the many other uniformed services of the United States listed? For example, within the United States Department of the Interior there are uniformed members of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the United States Department of Agriculture there are uniformed members of the United States Forest Service (several different types of Park Rangers, for instance). Perhaps other operating units of the DOI and USDA also have uniformed members. Perhaps other U.S. Cabinet-level departments have uniformed members as well. Why are none of these uniformed services of the United States listed? Is it simply because they are not naval-ranked like the NOAA Commissioned Corps or the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps? Is it because they don't operate under military rules? (If so, shouldn't the title "Uniformed services of the United States" be qualified by some statement that indicates this limitation to the definition?) Or is there some other distinction?

Courtneymitchell 05:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The definition comes direct from U.S. law, specifically Title 10 of the U.S. Code. I will update the article to state this. Isomorphic 06:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm new to this process and appreciate the kindness. What a remarkable phenomenon is Wikipedia! I'm still interested in the other U.S. services that use uniforms such as the U. S. Park Service Park Rangers, the United States Park Police, USDA Forest Service rangers, Game Wardens, the United States Border Patrol, etc., their corresponding pay rates and rankings. The seven military services articles were very satisfying in scope and thoroughness. I'm still looking for something comparable for the other uniformed services, some of whom have extensive military training, carry weapons and put their life on the line every day.

Also of interest is the appearance of CIA operatives in Naval uniforms within the popular culture in such movies as "The Hunt for Red October" and "Clear and Present Danger". Is this a real practice and does it come from a reason to protect them against being captured as spies in a similar manner that was given for uniforming a non-military service such as the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (in Wikipedia's ariticle Uniformed services of the United States)? Courtneymitchell 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you could work groups like the Forestry Service or Border Patrol into this article. This article covers the groups that are formally considered "uniformed". You could put in a sentence or two explaining that while other federal services wear uniforms, they are not considered uniformed services for the purposes of Title 10. I can't answer your question about the CIA. International law stresses wearing a uniform as part of the definition for a legal combatant. So if the CIA officer is wearing a U.S. uniform, acting as an agent of the U.S. government, would it matter that he isn't actually a military officer? I don't know. I also have no idea if the CIA would do something like that; movies rarely resemble reality. Isomorphic 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the Hunt for Red October, the protagonist is 1) in disguise and 2) holds (held?) a commission in the United States Navy, having gone through the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Kdar 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryan was a Marine - he TAUGHT in Annapolis 58.6.92.252 05:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "military," the people that fight wars with "law enforcement" who while they wear uniforms are civilians. It always makes me cringe to see police officers saluting, they're not entitled to by law. The Coast Guard, while it operates in Peacetime as a civilian law enforcement agency by law, under wartime becomes part of the Department of Defense. Presently, there are Coast Guard units in the Iraqi Theatre of Operations. Very good explanation of the rationale behind the other two services, I also want to note the CIA really are spies so they're not covered under the Geneva Convention under any circumstances anyway.

Re: law enforcement (or anyone else) saluting. I know of no law anywhere that says only members of the uniformed services are entitled to salute. In fact, the Flag Code as enacted in the US Code (Title 36 I believe) specifies that anyone in uniform has to salute the flag during the national anthem, although it doesn't specify that the uniform has to be military. Yes, this does have the perverse effect of requiring McDonald's or whatever employees to salute, although the Flag Code isn't really binding because there is no punishment for violating it. Thirdgen (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] postal service?

I heard many years ago that the USPS was included - not any more? 58.6.92.252 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Insertformulahere

[edit] TSA

I erased mention of TSA. The section mentioned that they were not considered a Uniformed Service, but that they were a part of the Federal Government whose members were required to wear uniforms. First off, if we are including any federal agency with a uniform, we would have to include most of them. Second, not all TSA employees have to wear a uniform, so the section was wrong --18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Thirdgen (talk)

Concur. I think the user totaly misunderstood the term "uniformed Services", and didn't understand how the article defined the term, assuming they even bothered to read it! Perhaps we out to capitalize the "S" in "Services" to emphasize this is somthing unique, and not just any federal government entity which wears a uniform. - BillCJ (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

I've remove the over-large logos which are distracting, make the section take up far too much room, and are purely for decoration. In addition, as the {{United States uniformed services}} navbox has logos already, it's redundant to have any in the text at all. - BillCJ (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. As is, it is dull, generic, and very boring. Having four bulleted lists makes the "seven" (count 'em: 11 links) wholly non-obvious and confusing. I have no problem admitting my change was, for a lack of a better word, extravagant and spacious but that's little reason to wholly negate my entire effort with it.
That and having logos on other pages is rather irrelevant to this page. Cburnett (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you missed my point on the navbox entirely: The navbox coding is on another page, but it's transcluded here in a nice little box at the bottom of the page - all you have to do is click "Show"! I do understand your motive, and always thought it was in good faith, but slapping logos and seals all over the place is not generally an accepted way of doing things on WP. Perhaps one or two pics of commissined officers in uniforms would be a better way to go. The non-military services aren't very well known as such, so we could go with one of each, and then perhaps one image with a mix of Armed Forces officers. I'll try to troll through Commons and see what I can find later this week, but feel free to add any in the mean time. Also, you might take a look at some of the other pges that deal with government services, and see if you can find a less "spacious" way of presenting the list there. I can't think of one right off though, or I'd point you too it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] others

Aren't there other ones or defunct ones? Such as the National Guard, Merchant Marine, United States Zeppelin Force, etc.--4.244.33.7 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Guard is the state/territiorial militias of the United States, and are part of the structure of the Army and Air Force. The Merchant Marine is by statute not part of the armed services, though Merchant Marine veterans of World War II are regarded as combat veterans (my uncle was a deck officer and received burial at Arlington). The USZF sounds like something out of a steampunk novel.
The reason these services are listed as such is the U.S. Code, which defines the armed services. This does not mean other groups do not serve the nation, or do not wear uniforms.GABaker (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)