Talk:Five-star rank

GFM is not a Five-star-rank
A Generalfeldmarschall is not a Five-star-rank, obviously there are no stars - but marshal batons. The Five-star-rank is a US-terminology not a German. Consequently an encyclopedia could / should writes " is comparable with Five-star-ranks" but not "is a Five-star-rank. That's may be sophisticated, but an encyclopedia should be as correct as it can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.219.94 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I imagine you would argue similarly that Field Marshal (United Kingdom) is not a five-star rank? Andrewa (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yeah. I would make the same comment there; in fact this does seem to be US-specific terminology and should perhaps be relegated to its proper position, with a new page properly reflecting international (and often much earlier) usage.  I was going to say OF10, but that's NATO only and may be a non-ideal equivalent with non-NATO countries.  But I digress, referring to this senior rank in purely US terms seems quite bizarre. --Vometia (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph of this article currently reads:

"A five-star rank is a very senior military rank, first established in the United States in 1944, with a five-star general insignia, and corresponding ranks in other countries. The rank is that of the most senior operational military commanders, and within NATO's "standard rank scale" it is designated by the code OF-10."


 * Are you arguing that those grades do not fall within that definition? Are you suggesting that that definition ought to be changed? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I think "5-star ranks" is actually a term that NATO uses, albeit of American origin, and not necessarily one implying that such an insignia is used by other countries for the ranks in question. It is worth noting, however, that other Allied countries used the generals=stars insignia is some cases, e.g British major generals and lieutenant generals using car license plates with 2 and 3 stars, respectively, rather than the actual British Army insignia for those ranks. The practicality of that is pretty obvious. Venqax (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The "star-rank" terminology, in general, is very Anglo/Americentric, as it doesn't account for all the nations which either doesn't use stars or just have a different number of stars on their insignia. E.g. a number of African nations use five stars, for their "General" rank.
 * I think this article (and its related pages) needs to be rewritten, and have two sperate sections (in actuality and as "unit" of measurement/comparison), because currently it doesn't make sense. It states in the lead, that a seven-star rank is a five-star rank. What?
 * Additionally, this: "A five-star rank [...], first established in the United States in 1944", is completely bullshit. As both the actual French five-star rank of Army general and the seven-star "five-star" Marshal of France, existed before 1944. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally agree. The article needs a rewrite and US-centrism needs to be isolated to a section focused on the US. I don't have much topical knowledge, though, and don't anticipate involvement in a rewrite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One of Wikipedia's weaknesses is its vulnerability to groups of POV amateurs forming and owning certain articles. The WikiProject process helps to prevent this, perhaps this is counterintuitive but it does help by bringing it out into the open. But it's still a problem.
 * If you think this is bad have look at wherever six star rank currently points. The military hobbyists of the USA apparently don't think it's encyclopedic to mention the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony at which Hermann Göring was promoted from the five-star rank of Generalfeldmarschall to that of Reichsmarschall. In this they rely on primary sources from within the US military.
 * Or moving away from the military, if you were a student at one of the many non-US institutions that call themselves State University... what would you think following that link? The hatnote doesn't really save it IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree it is a problem on all X-star rank. The problem right now, is the lack of sources and focus. It might very well be a well-known and commonly used terminology within US armed forces, if this is the case, then it makes perfect sense to have articles on the subject. But right now, there is no sources to support this, and the lead does not explain this adequately enough.
 * So far, doing cursory research, I have been only been able to verify that Bangladesh and the UK (which funnily enough doesn't state FM as a 5 star), use the "rank" system, apart from the US.
 * Looking through all the star rank pages, there is barely any sources on any of them. Additionally, there seem to be no real point to any of these pages apart from showing some different ranks. Honestly, the only page which had some merit was the 6-star, but all relevant information have been moved to General of the Armies. I don't see the relevance to any of these page, and they should probably all be deleted. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As far this article goes, I suggested a major review and rewrite of all these "x-star", "mega-admiral" & "super-duper-general" articles (the US-centric ones) months ago, but it was basically shot down, followed by a lack of interest. (and as to 's post: not sure what your point is, "State University"...?) -  wolf  20:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * currently redirects to State university system which starts out A state university system in the United States.... In view of the contents of State university (disambiguation) I find this primary redirect US-centric enough to be mildly funny, but if I were a member of one of those other Universities I might even find it insulting. It has no justification as a primary topic.
 * The reason that it was shot down I expect is the US military hobbyists to whom I referred above. The reason for the lack of interest is that so many similar proposals have similarly failed. Wikipedia is not perfect. Andrewa (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two options.

All "x-star" pages are collected into one page. I have no idea why there currently are pages for each, seeing as it is basically repetition, with the names and images of the ranks. Then the ranks of different countries could be collected into table(s) like this one:
 * Option 1

Delete "x-star" pages. Even with the collection of pages, there still aren't enough references to support the material and fails Notability. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2

Note: The suggestion to merge has been mentioned previously, at: Talk:General of the Armies (and the discussion I mentioned above can be found at: Talk:Admiral of the Navy (United_States)) fyi -  wolf  21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Terminology
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here that is on-going. The term "5-star rank" applies to the rank--as the title says-- not whatever insignia is used for it. Though the terminology originated with the US, it is NOT a US specific term. It is standard terminology today, not only with NATO (where it is OF-10), but around the world. It has nothing to do with "how many" stars are actually used (yes, Marshal of France uses 7 stars, but it is a 5-star rank) or if they are used at all (yes, Field Marshal is a 5-star rank). This "problem" is no different from arguing that Yellow Cabs are not really Yellow Cabs because they are orange and black in color. Yellow is the name of the company, for whatever reason. What color their cabs actually are is a completely different question. If it seems US-centric, it's because the world's military rank system is a bit US-centric, not because the writer of the article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for this basic misunderstanding, might be because this (and the other rank pages) have unclear language and almost no information regarding the use and background. Additionally, there is a general lack sources regarding this terminology. Where do you read that star-ranks are used in NATO? I have just looked through STANAG 2116 edition 5 and 6, and there is no mention of it. I also think that It is standard terminology [...] around the world, is an exaggeration. As I stated above, I have only been able to find a limited amount of sources to verify that countries use this terminology. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Italian General Rank
I'm confused as to why the rank of Italian Army General is included on this list - the picture of the shoulder boards very clearly shows four stars, and there's no indication that the rank is higher than a normal, 4-star general. Does anyone know if the rank is in fact equivalent and my assumption incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.211.250 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I second that question. The modern Italian general rank is listed as a "five star" rank in other Wikipedia entries as well, without explanation. Venqax (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The explanation is that while the concept of an n-star rank arose in the USA it has now been adopted by many sources to describe the equivalent NATO ranks and others. So for example the rank of field marshal in both the UK and Australia is a five-star rank although it has no stars at all on its insignia. Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not questioning the insignia not having 5-stars. I am questioning why the rank of General, uniquely in the Italian Army evidently, would be considered a 5-star, or NATO O-10 rank, equivalent to e.g. field marshal or general of the army. It would seem to rather be equal to General, 0-9, just like all the other countries' ranks with that title. This is reinforced by the fact that the named 0-9 rank is not really a rank, but an appointment of the O-8 rank-- General of Corps with Special Appointment.Venqax (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceremonial Rank..?
This is not a "ceremonial" rank in the United States Army. Eisenhower, Pershing, Bradley were all Five Star Generals. There's probably others. My understanding is this rank is used in wartime to establish parity with other nations that have a rank of Field Marshall. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And there were indeed others, in the Army and also the Navy and later one in the Air Force. And that was the explicit reason for the US adopting its five-star ranks in 1944.
 * Just a little more of the mess the military hobbyists of the USA create and sometimes succeed in enforcing here at Wikipedia. It's not entirely their fault. The US military establishment refuse to confirm or deny the positions of Dewey and Pershing in this later rank structure. And while these are primary sources, they do carry some weight.
 * And of course they also want to consider the infinity-star rank of Washington as something more than ceremonial. It must be a painful position. Andrewa (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure what Andrew means. It has been long-established and official in the US that Pershing held a ranks called, General of the Armies of the United States, and that rank was superior to the 5-star ranks created in WWII. So a "six star" equivalent, under the star system of designation. In Dewey's case, it is clearly stated by the Navy that Fleet Admiral-- 5-star-- is its highest ran, and that Admiral of the Navy is superior to Admiral (4 stars). So, that leaves Dewey as kind of a 4 1/2 star admiral. Washington, by law-- an actual Act of Congress-- is also a General of the Armies, and permanently senior to any other officer, including Pershing and Dewey. It is, of course, honorary, being posthumous etc, but such things are far from unordinary in militaries. How this is unclear or "infinty stars" is mysterious. Venqax (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Terminology
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here that is on-going. The term "5-star rank" applies to the rank--as the title says-- not whatever insignia is used for it. Though the terminology originated with the US, it is NOT a US specific term. It is standard terminology today, not only with NATO (where it is OF-10), but around the world. It has nothing to do with "how many" stars are actually used (yes, Marshal of France uses 7 stars, but it is a 5-star rank) or if they are used at all (yes, Field Marshal is a 5-star rank). This "problem" is no different from arguing that Yellow Cabs are not really Yellow Cabs because they are orange and black in color. Yellow is the name of the company, for whatever reason. What color their cabs actually are is a completely different question. If it seems US-centric, it's because the world's military rank system is a bit US-centric, not because the writer of the article is.Venqax (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)x

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Field Marshal (India).gif

Five star as 2nd highest rank
The article starts with the sentence "A five-star rank is the second highest military rank in the United States" but the provided citation does not even say that. MrGoodEgg (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The Five-Star General Ranks are the highest US military ranks.
Although only used during World War 2, the 5-Star ranks were created so that American flag officers could command and coordinate entire Allied fronts during the war. The General of the Army, Fleet Admiral and later General of the Air Force were lifetime appointments that conferred active duty pay even in retirement. There have been no appointments since Hap Arnold was made a 5-star General of the Air Force (GAF) in 1949 after the US Air Force separated from the US Army in 1947. It is still part of the regular rank tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspur23 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * are you seeking to add or change something in the article? - w o lf  22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a notice in the article that questioned whether the 5-star ranks (which are still included in modern rank tables despite not currently in use) were the highest in the US military. I was just clarifying the note, which I think needs to be removed.
 * There were ceremonial ranks like General of the Armies (General George Washington) and General of the Armies of the United States (General John J. Pershing) that were lifetime awards for service. Washington's General of the Armies, as per the act of congress that created it, will outrank any current or future military rank. Pershing's General of the Armies of the United States outranked any contemporary American Army rank and is considered senior to the later five-star ranks. It was never officially granted any insignia, but Pershing unofficially wore four gold general stars (as seen in his official portraits). They are not part of the standard rank tables.
 * The four-star General of the Army of the United States was an augmentation to the post of Commanding General of the US Army granted to generals who were veterans of the Civil War. It was held (in chronological order) by Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Philip H. Sheridan. It was discontinued after the death of Sheridan. The ceremonial rank is considered senior to all three- and four-star general ranks but inferior to all the five-star general ranks. Hotspur23 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. So are you proposing that tag be removed and, possibly some other changes made? (Also, I'm not sure if the matter of Pershing's insignia is completely settled). - w o lf  02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Omar Bradley was promoted to General of the Army in 1950. That was the last time the rank was granted and it, too, was for reasons of protocol. The ranks were originally created as temporary and war-time only, like the 3 and 4 star ranks created for WW1 had been. It was later that they were made lifetime appointments.Venqax (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)