Talk:Master-at-arms

Update the Master-at-Arms Page

I would like to expand on this article some more. This U.S. Navy rate has seen some significant changes in recent times since 9/11 and thisarticle does not fully explain our role in the military. Our efforts supporting the military services abroad and overseas is very complex and difficult. Any others who can provide more information will be greatly appreciated. I guess my format to use would be the Hospital Corpsman (HM) page. Taotaomona77 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add whatever detail you can provide. Format it as per an existing page like Hospital Corpsman if you can, but don't worry too much about the formatting - other editors can add that afterwards. If you've got the expertise, please feel very welcome to add it. --AlexChurchill (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Master-at-arms" -> "Master-at-Arms"?

Given that the rank's capitalisation throughout the article is "Master-at-Arms", shouldn't the article be moved to "Master-at-Arms" rather than "Master-at-arms"? --AlexChurchill (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes: "Master-at-Arms" is a formal title & is also correct editorially. Lower case use would occur when the term is not a formal title but a general, likely plural, title, as in "The room was full of masters-at-arms." 138.162.128.54 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to open a discussion about possibly separating this article in two, distinguishing the Master-at-Arms of the United Kingdom from that of the United States Navy. Although we do trace our rating's beginning from the Royal Navy, I would like this separated as its own article. I read some of the FAQs, and I have tried to move it but do not have the admin rights, so I'd like this to be open for discussion and possible solicit help. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Plural of Master-at-arms

I just added a picture with this caption: "Two Master-at-Arms conducting a security patrol near the USNS Comfort". I am not sure what the plural of Master-at-Arms is so feel free to correct this. --BurtAlert (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's immaterial in this case since it's not a photo of two masters-at-arms. The sailor on the left is a commissioned officer; only petty officers can hold the Master-at-Arms rating. I don't see what the photograph adds to the article. It's just two sailors on a small boat doing or representing nothing that can be seen as specific to the function of a master-at-arms. I've replaced the photo with one more appropriate to the article.--SEWalk (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Civilian ships

Didn't civilian ships used to have a crew position called the master-at-arms as well? 141.152.254.26 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Titanic did. What did he do? 72.95.24.248 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

POV Template 2012-07

Seriously, "our infant nation's [whatever]"? "[D]irect response to the terrorist acts of the Barbary State's pirates"?

If I touch this as an IP, I'm in a world of hurt, so somebody else has to clean up this mess. --91.10.39.157 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Adjusted so the point-of-view doesn't seem quite read like an American history book. I can't see any non-neutral wording in other sections, so I'm removing the template. Jpanzerj (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Separate this page into two different pages, one for UK MAAs and one for US MAs

I would like to recommend separating this into two articles. One for the United Kingdom and another for the United States Navy. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with separating, but not as you suggest. I would create a new article Master at Arms (United States Navy) and move the US Navy information in it, but I would retain an outline of the US information in the current article and hopefully, other contributors can make it more universal.

I have doubts about the title of the current article:

Why the hyphens? I'm not that familiar with Naval terms, but are they required?

Should Arms be capitalized? Take a look at WP:MOS to see.

If the title does not need capitalization, is it because the term has non-naval applications. If so, perhaps this article, which is about a Navy position should be retitled to say that. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on making a separate Master-at-Arms (United States Navy) and keeping a brief description of that on the current page. I am new to this so I would not even know how to begin. In the U.S. Navy there are hyphens in the nautical rating as it is spelled, so that is the correct way. I do not know for other countries, but from the brief research it is similar. The "A" in Arms is also capitalized.Taotaomona1977 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I submitted a request to create a page for Master-at-Arms (United States Navy) and once approved, I will edit this page to make it more balanced.Taotaomona1977 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's separate this article

I would still like to separate this page, making this a general overview of the Master-at-Arms, and separating the U.S. Navy rating as its own article. I have tried three different times with no success. If anyone would like to help me to get this approved or do it on their own, that would be much appreciated. I believe the U.S. Navy rating deserves an article based on its own merits. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Major Updates to this page

I am not a Wikipedia expert, nor a grammar major, so please look at the changes for information value and content. Would like some "expert" advise to improve this page and rate. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Master-at-arms (United States Navy)

I propose that we consider splitting off Master-at-arms (United States Navy) (created as a redirect to here). A significant portion of this page focuses on that and it's better to separate it so it can be in its own categories and the like. Any objections? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The current wonderful amounts of detailed information relating to the US Navy heavily outweighs the remainder of the article. If every other topic relating to Master-at-arms were equally well covered, so as to provide balance for all possible sub-topics, the article would be hundreds of pages and would need to be split due to sheer size. As the article hatnote indicates, the article presently suffers from WP:Systemic bias and fails to provide a worldwide view. Wikierroneous 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Taotaomona77 and Ricky81682 have forgotten to show reasoning why the British and US versions of MAAs need separate explanations of the concept. I agree though, that the copious minutae and lists of names under the US section should be separated from this article. I think that data would have notability issues to overcome before rating its own, however. Sadsaque (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not really that I want to separate the article, per se, because of any significant differences between master-at-arms of other navies and those of the United States of America, but rather because of the comments that the current article does not represent a global view (or not lopsided as is the case now). I have done some research and put some work into the current version, but I am not educated enough nor have the time to edit the various parts of this article. I would like to see it separated on the basis that other articles discussing U.S. Navy military occupational fields do exist on Wikipedia.Taotaomona1977 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• DONE. Page has been split. As my old sea daddy once said, "So it shall be written, so it shall be done." And yes, before you ask, his parents actually named him after Rameses. . :) KevCor360 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Legs

When I was swabbish, any military police were called Jimmy Legs. Melville refers to the Master-at-Arms as this in Billy Budd. So, Melville's 1888 reference in the Royal Navy, and these back at least to 1875 in the US Navy , and finally this 1898 memoir of an American admiral describing the nearly identical natures & habits of the 2 navies: https://books.google.com/books?id=2xfpxat8OGUC&pg=PA33&dq=jimmy+legs , I think show that the concept ever has been the same, and I'm surprised, at least, it's not found in this article yet. Sadsaque (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Very true Sadsaque and I hope that people with your knowledge and research can edit the current article to represent a better picture of this nautical occupation that has roots in the Royal Navy and how it has affected, grown, and nurtured other master-at-arms of other navies.Taotaomona1977 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Informal use

My understanding is that the title is used in some gang cultures to denote a member responsible for internal discipline. Should this be at least mentioned? Chrismorey (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)