Talk:Warrant officer (United States)

message: In a recent revert summary, I wrote: "adding "valued, encyclopedic information"; making wholesale, nonconsensual changes is quite another".
I accidently hit the return key before I was finished. I meant to write: "adding "valued, encyclopedic information" is one thing; making wholesale, nonconsensual changes is quite another". Thanks. - BillCJ 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary correction

message: Why is it that the United States Warrant Officer rank has its own page but the United Kingdom, Australia and a few others share a page?  --Climax-Void  Chat or My Contributions 
:Because a Warrant Officer in the United States is an Officer, not a senior enlisted as it is in the UK, Australia, and the few others mentioned. --Born2flie 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not recognised as such outside of the US. Officers have a commission, warrant officers have a warrant. --Nozzer71 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is; see STANAG 2116 (category WO) created specifically for the US Warrant Officer ranks. (As a US Army CW2 serving as a liaison officer/exchange pilot in a German Army helicopter squadron, I was billeted, messed, and treated as a lieutenant.) Also, US Chief Warrant Officers do have a commission. (My commissions as a US Army CWO look exactly the same as my subsequent commissions as an officer in the USMC, excepting, of course, the ranks, dates, and branch of service. I also swore the same oath of office as an officer of the United States for each new commission received upon every promotion.) Lastly, the US WOs warrant is an officer's appointment to federal office authorized by Title 10 of the United States Code of Law vice simply a promotion certificate. CobraDragoon (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Its own article?

message: Seems IP editors keep deleting the USMC WO1 rank, but every reference I've found so far, including the Marine .mil websites have nothing about the Marine Corps discontinuing this rank, even though the United States Navy has. In fact, the WO1 image is from a USMC website. Anyone seen something more "current"? --Born2flie 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the last three recent IP edits all originate from a relatively similar geographical position and seem to be focused on editing the Marine Corps Warrant Officer insignia, originally deleting the W-5 insignia and then deleting the W-1 insignia followed by an edit indicating that the W-1 grade will soon be discontinued despite sharing no reference or source to substantiate any of these edits. --Born2flie 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine WO1 

message: I'm not sure that the following is germaine to an article discussing utilization of the Warrant Officer rank within the Uniformed Services of the United States: I have clarified the lead-in so that, hopefully, we will not continue to be compelled to explain in any detail that the Uniformed Services and their ranks do not strictly apply solely to the Armed Services, or the relationship of the Uniformed Services to each other. September 11, 2001 and the subsequent move of the USCG from under the DOT to the newly formed DHS in 2003 have nothing to do with how the USCG selects and utilizes its warrants, and neither does the fact of whether they fall under the DoD during times of war. I recommend removal of the statements. --Born2flie 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard 

message: The shoulder ranks (stripes) shown for Navy and CG W-2 are actually the W-1 stripes; the W-2 stripes are actually those shown as Navy W-1. Can someone correct this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.210.170 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoulder rank error

message: Included in the National Defense Authorization Bill for 2011 - HR5136
SEC. 507. AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF WARRANT OFFICERS IN THE GRADE OF W-1 BY COMMISSION AND STANDARDIZATION OF WARRANT OFFICER APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
(a) Regular Officers-
(1) AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENTS BY COMMISSION IN WARRANT OFFICER W-1 GRADE- The first sentence of section 571(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `by the Secretary concerned' and inserting `, except that with respect to an armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary concerned may provide by regulation that appointments in that grade in that armed force shall be made by commission'.
(2) APPOINTING AUTHORITY- The second sentence of such section is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: `, and appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W-1 (whether by warrant or commission), shall be made by the President, except that appointments in that grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary concerned'.
(b) Reserve Officers- Subsection (b) of section 12241 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`(b) Appointments in permanent reserve warrant officer grades shall be made in the same manner as is prescribed for regular warrant officer grades by section 571(b) of this title.'.
(c) Presidential Functions- Except as otherwise provided by the President by Executive order, the provisions of Executive Order 13384 (10 U.S.C. 531 note) relating to the functions of the President under the second sentence of section 571(b) of title 10, United States Code, shall apply in the same manner to the functions of the President under section 12241(b) of title 10, United States Code.--92.0.216.33 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is proposed legislation only. The resolution was only referred to the house committee at the end of April and hasn't even been presented to the entire House of Representatives. --Born2flie (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:CRYSTAL --Born2flie (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: And the government lesson continues as the separate House and Senate bills now go to a joint committee to be streamlined into one bill for the President to sign. Still not a law, still not a fact. --Born2flie (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, that would be important information in the discussion. Your previous statements referred to HR5136, and with over 6 months between the updates to the discussion of the House passing a bill and the Senate passing a bill, one could not be expected to conclude that it was the same bill. So, we're at least at the second time around for; still waiting on the President's signature, WO1 commissioning still not a fact. --Born2flie (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the update. I didn't revert you, but the way you wrote the information in, without a citation for reference, was a trigger to your being reverted. I would expect a document discussing how each service plans to implement this new law to be an appropriate reference. Otherwise, your most recent edit has the earmark of original research, unless that is how it is specifically written into the signed law. --Born2flie (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Your link is a copy of a powerpoint briefing and less of a document than a product with bullets for discussion/briefing. Without some meaningful notes for the briefing or other memoranda, it requires synthesis to say that the proposed actions from 2009, along with the current NDAA, equate to policy changes in the Army. In my opinion, what is needed is a document that spells it out in black and white: "The Army intends to commission WO1s for this reason." On a personal note, this could be one step closer to transitioning to Limited Duty Officers in the Army, that many in the Army suspect is a goal of some of the leaders, even WO leaders. --Born2flie (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:NOTNEWS is probably apropos to this article as well. I am not sure how notable the program is/was, but perhaps an article on Warrant Officer Leader Development or one of the other programs that is purported to be the source of this change would be a better avenue than trying to include it here, where it does not seem to meet the consensus for inclusion. --Born2flie (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioning of Army WO1s 2011 

message: I notice there is no mention of State Command Chief Warrant Officers in the article. I think it is a relatively "new" position (created in maybe the last 5-10 yrs) in the U.S. I know the officer who holds the rank must be a CW5. Might be worth a mention in this article. I've got no sources for ya right now, though... ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Command Chief Warrant Officer

message: The following unsigned comment regarding the establishment of Warrant Officers in the USPHS was moved from the mainspace article. --Born2flie (talk)
This has not been authorized by the Public Health Service. Nurse are still requiered to have a BSN at a minimum. For more information call 800–279–1605 and speak directly to their recruiters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.105.145 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Health Service 

message: Was there ever such a rank?  I don't think so but wanted to make sure before the picture is removed from the article. -OberRanks (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section in question and its source. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is, "Was there ever a rank insignia for the rank?" based on the recent deletion of the image from the article. --Born2flie (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The single line insignia that has been repeatedly added is speculative. The design that is similar to the old Army CW5 insignia and MW4 insignia is the only rank insignia that has an official AF/DoD source cited. Until the USAF publishes new insignia for CW5, the speculative insignia is incorrect and inappropriate to use in this article. 2601:281:D57E:32A0:DB85:E60A:4FC1:8D (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Force Warrant Officer 5

message: Does anyone think that, under the Army section, someone could add in a short description about the fact that the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command has Warrant Officer Special Agents? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: CID Special Agent Warrant Officers are Special Agents like NCO Special Agents with responsibilities at the Detachment and higher level that require the rank of Warrant Officer. They fall within the Technical community of warrant officers. I question that there is anything specifically notable about the CID specialty that warrants singling it out from any other warrant officer specialty? Aviation and Special Forces are mentioned briefly because they notably has different requirements or training from the other warrant officer specialties; however, there is purposely not a significant, specific focus on those specialties. --Born2flie (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army CID Warrant Officer Special Agent 

message: Please check the accuracy of the Master Warrant Officer being equivalent to a CW5.  In addition to this, I think the Air Force has Master Warrant Officers, too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.153.170 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check 

message: "All Naval Academy students, men and women, are called midshipmen, which is a rank between chief warrant officer and ensign in the Navy."
*Yes, I have looked at that site, and I have sent an email enquiry to the US Naval Academy requesting clarification and a reference for their assertion.
**Per US Navy Regulations, Chapter 10 - Precedence, Authority and Command,
**Section 1. Precedence,
***1001. Officers of the Naval Service;
***1002. Precedence of Officers;
***1003. Relative Rank and Precedence of Officers of Different Services;
**Section 2. Authority,
***1037. Authority of Warrant Officers, et al.; and
**Section 4. Succession to Command,
***1085. Succession to Command by Chief Warrant Officers and Warrant Officers
Midshipmen are nowhere mentioned in the regulations but Warrant Officers definitely are. It would appear rather odd that midshipmen would outrank warrant officers, when Navy Regulations do not even list the rank title of midshipman, much less proscribe any "Precedence, Authority and Command" to incumbents.
Obviously, the rank of midshipman exists, but we need to see its authorizing documentation.
Curiously, the Army does list midshipman, along with cadet, in Army Regulation 600-20 - Army Command Policy in its Table 1-2 - Comparable Grades among the Services, where it clearly shows both ranks subordinate to Warrant Officer One. CobraDragoon (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm curious about the answer - there's a citation in midshipman that USNA midshipmen are technically officers of the line who are limited by their training status. This is probably a historical tradition that midshipman is an officer rank in the navy but in practice doesn't actually mean anything (as you noted in Chapter 10). Kirk (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

text: *Yes, me too. I am still waiting for a response from the academy; I'll give them a few more days before I resend and I might send an inquiry to BUPERS as well. By the way, did you catch the interesting historical comment re midshipman "warrant officers" prior to 1912? I believe that because of the two completely separate service traditions (i.e., military and naval) complicated by the shared, but again separate, heritage of customs and traditions adopted from the British Army and Navy, and further confused by over a century of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and miscommunications re the meaning of commission, warrant, midshipman, etc., that there are almost as many opinions as participants, and the overwhelming majority are simply wrong. I have seen blog posts on the internet from active duty sailors, many purporting to be petty officers and chief petty officers (but oddly enough, no officers), positing that midshipmen are not even superior in rank to a seaman apprentice, etc. Obviously, midshipmen cannot simultaneously rank below E-2 (as many enlisted sailors apparently believe), between E-9 and W-1/W-2 (as I believe and AR-600-20 affirms), above W-5 but below O-1 (as you and the Naval Academy affirm), and have no rank at all (as seemingly indicated in NR Chapter 10) in the same armed forces and at the same time in history! I would like to pursue this until we receive an authoritative answer supported by verifiable official documentation. Thanks for working with me on this. CobraDragoon (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I believe the mystery is just about solved. (See my edit to the Midshipman article under Modern usage, United States Navy and Marine Corps.) Per Brackin, William L. (1991). Naval Orientation (NAVEDTRA 12966). United States Navy Naval Education and Training Command. p. 9‑9. Retrieved 13 April 2015: "Naval Academy midshipmen are classified as officers of the line but are officers only in a qualified sense. They rank just below chief warrant officers." This manual was published in 1991, 16 years after the Navy (and Coast Guard) eliminated W-1 in 1975. This manual was written for Navy personnel as evidenced by the information on page 9-8, which specifically refers to Navy grades of rank, but also says, "Naval officers wear the following grade devices; they are similar to the grade devices worn by Army, Air Force and Marine officers." Obviously, the Navy knew that the Army and Marine Corps had W-1s, but they were specifically addressing Navy ranks (note the USCG is not mentioned at all). Public Law in the United States Code, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, and The Manual for Courts Martial, as well as Navy Regulations, Chapter 10, and Army Regulation 600-20 cannot all be wrong. It is matter of perspective and interpretation; in the Navy a midshipman ranks below a W-2, in the Army and Marine Corps they are below W-1, and in the Air Force they rank below O-1. I am amending the Warrant officer (United States) article to reflect this. CobraDragoon (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *My hunch was the Navy treats midshipmen as both officers and cadets, so when they get compared to services that have cadets without any status, they are equivalent to cadets in that service. The bracklin citation is already there - I ce'd your note and moved it to a note with a citation needed. There's still the mystery of why does the Naval Academy have on their webpage that midshipman outranks commissioned chief warrant officer? Curious if they ever write back! Kirk (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright, I'm OK with moving the note, but the citation is going to be a problem, since it is an amalgamation of information compiled from the USC, UCMJ, MCM, NR Ch. 10, AR-600-20, and NAVEDTRA 12966. (I'm beginning to believe that this issue may be the most complicated and convoluted piece of esoteric militaria ever encountered.) I'll post again when/if I receive a cogent response from the USNA, BUPERS, or some other authoritative source. CobraDragoon (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midshipman 

message: this is me clunking your heads together (3 Stooges syle) so that you'll stop edit warring and discuss. - wolf 03:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what is there to "discuss"? I made my reasoning very clear for my edit, yet per McChizzle it is only "my opinion." Well, yes it most certainly is "my opinion" and if "floatright" causes such a ridiculous presentation of information as currently exists in this instance, then perhaps someone could reformat/resize the table so that we don't have a column of words constituting part of a sentence "hanging in space" separated from the remainder of the sentence and paragraph to which it belongs. Besides, the table is misplaced to begin with--the section it is within discusses specifically U.S Army warrant officer ranks, yet the table displays warrant officer grade of rank insignia for all U.S. services (who currently employ warrant officers). How can anyone possible believe the current form is a) appropriate, b) visually appealing, and c) easy to read (if one doesn't notice the "hanging partial sentence" and their eyes naturally flow to the bottom of the table to begin reading)? The paragraph begins in the middle of a sentence--and if one does see the beginning of the sentence it just stops...abruptly... and hangs there waiting... until one scans down and realizes that the sentence/paragraph begins many lines above and just waits... for the reader to catch on.CobraDragoon (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming to the talk page, CD. Now let's see what  has to say. Hopefully you two can work it out. Otherwise, perhaps we'll have to have an informal RfC to determine consensus for the page layout. Cheers - wolf 11:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you, CobraDragoon, are viewing the page on a small screen, like a smartphone, and using the browser view vs the mobile view.  That could be part of your display problem.  Shrinking the size of the table is a good idea.  I agree, it's not in the best place and should be moved to the intro.  I just have issue with left justifying due to the Wikipedia practice to right justify graphics and tables for easier reading.  Plus, the added dead space that gets created in the way you formatted the table is not helpful.  Take a look at the page now and let me know what you think. --McChizzle (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey McC, thanks for joining in. I gotta say, I'm not a fan of having that rank insignia table way up next to the TOC. I think it needs to go back to "Ranks" section. I'm reserving comment on the initial issue for now. Thanks again - wolf 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: CobraDragoon is right, that sub-section is only about Army ranks and the table is about all current warrant officer ranks (i.e. it's a little out of place). --McChizzle (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Up next to the TOC? That seems completely out  of place. A table of rank insignia should be in the rank section. Now I know you guys couldn't agree on the text alignment, and now you feel that the rank section is too army-centric for a military-wide table (if I have that right), but sticking the table way up out of place simply to avoid those issues and take the easy way out is not a solution. It certainly doesn't improve the article. Perhaps a brief intro should be written for the ranks section that is more generic instead of army-specific, an intro that leads into the table, and then we can place the table there. Thoughts? - wolf 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Rank" section that exists now is a subsection of the "Army" section.  So the table really did not belong there.  Your idea, Thewolfchild, is a good one, so go for it! --McChizzle (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; how about placing the insignia table immediately below the last paragraph of the introduction and above the table of contents?CobraDragoon (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me you're joking. - wolf 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

text: No, not "joking" at all; please don't tell me you think having the table displaying insignia of all services placed within a section discussing specifically Army warrant officer ranks belongs within that section. I was/am attempting to help come up with a solution that not only makes sense but solves the original problem that brought this discussion into being--I don't know if you are attempting to be "cute" or just sarcastic, but I don't appreciate such an apparent condescending remark.CobraDragoon (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, ok relax. No, it wasn't meant to be condescending. Anyways, it appears we have a solution for now, so I think we're done here. Have a nice day - wolf 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text align