Talk:Five-star rank/Archive 1

Missing People
I rememeber in history that John J. Pershing was the first 5 star general. Also George Washington was promoted posthumously. Superbowlbound (talk • contribs) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can find them on the respective page General of the Army. With regards to Pershing, he was actually a General of the Armies, a different rank from General of the Army but Pershing never wore more than four stars. General of the Armies could be considered to be almost a six star rank and there were plans to create this rank for the Invasion of Japan but this didn't happen as the A-bombs caused the Japanaese surrender. Later Washington was also postumously promoted to General of the Armies -- fdewaele, 26 February 2008, 9:50 CET

(Hopefully helpful additions. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

America-centric
Reading this article it strikes me that it is a projection of American military rank onto other nations. Do the French, or the Portuguese, to use two examples given, use the phrase '5-star general'? If not, then what is written here is pretty inaccurate. Cripipper (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reading this article it strikes me that it is a projection of American military rank onto other nations." - Well, yes. I would have thought that, (though not explicitly stated), this fact was implicitly and blatantly obvious.
 * What's your point?
 * I draw analogy to the fact that the vast majority of the Commonwealth Armed Forces continue to use rank insignia obviously either identical to, similar to, or derived from, British rank insignia. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Do the French, or the Portuguese, to use two examples given, use the phrase '5-star general'?" - Don't know. (Don't care.) I don't see how that's relevant. What's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "If not, then what is written here is pretty inaccurate." - I disagree, and I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I see no inaccuracies. Could you please be explicit as to what you think / feel is inaccurate? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much you edit on Wikipedia, but your confrontational attitude is not the normal way things are done around here. This is meant to be an encyclopedia entry; things should not be 'implicit'; nor should it be 'blatantly obvious' that this is a projection of American terminology onto other countries. If that is what it is, then it should say so, explicitly. As it is currently written one could be led to believe that this is a phrase used universally across all armed forces. Cripipper (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much you edit on Wikipedia - A lot. And it wouldn't have been hard to determine that. Do your homework rather than make vague hand-waving unsubstantiated general statements. Say what you mean - don't pussy-foot around.
 * You are a twat.
 * but your confrontational attitude is not the normal way things are done around here. - "I don't know how much you edit on Wikipedia", but it is my experience that a "confrontational attitude" IS "the normal way things are done around here". Apparently, I have been affected by this. Not my intention. My apologies.
 * You are a twat.
 * This is meant to be an encyclopedia entry; things should not be 'implicit'; - If one never made assumptions, one would never get out of bed in the morning in fear that gravity might not work. What "should" be, and what "is" are often unrelated.
 * You are a twat.
 * nor should it be 'blatantly obvious'  - Perhaps. But the simple fact is that it is.
 * You are a twat.
 * that this is a projection of American terminology onto other countries'. - I don't know how to respond to that. As I said: "the simple fact is that it is".
 * You are a twat.
 * If that is what it is, then it should say so, explicitly. - Not necessary. It's implicit and obvious.
 * You are a twat.
 * As it is currently written one could be led to believe that this is a phrase used universally across all armed forces. - (Isn't it strange how Miss Universe is always a humanoid?) Sadly, the simple fact of the "golden rule" is that "the one with the gold, rules". And the US Military seem to have the spending power of having the gold. "Universal" may be an over-generalisation, but it seems to influence NATO, the (British) Commonwealth, and a large part of Asia and Africa. (Can't comment on South America.)
 * Having said all that, I'm not averse to anyone clarifying anything, particularly if they supply supporting references ...
 * You are a twat. (See above for references.) Cripipper (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I remember why I gave up editing this thing... Cripipper (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Without any intention of stirring up a problem that has not been an issue with the article proper so far, I do bring to the attention of those interested that at least the British, United Kingdom (UK), indeed view their equivalent five-star ranks as being (indeed) "five-star" ranks. Witness the recent press release from Buckingham Palace on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms titled "Honorary Five Star Rank appointment" (see the main article for a full citation) announcing the promotions by The Queen in June of 2012 of His Royal Highness Prince Charles to all three of the UK five-star ranks and that of Lord Charles Guthrie to the UK five-star rank of Field Marshal. The British -- with their very (very) long military tradition -- do not have to refer to their military ranks as anything other than what they want to. Yet they do not feel embarrassed at all to refer to them as "five-star" ranks. Besides, who can reasonably argue with The Queen on the language her staff uses to announce her military appointments. --L.Smithfield (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Americans promoted to five-star rank
The list in the footnote omits John Pershing and George Dewey because, it explains, they never wore more than four stars. Considering that this is a list of Americans who have been promoted to five-star rank or above, not a list of the subset of those who wore more than four stars, it seems to me that the omitted individuals should be listed -- perhaps with a footnote explaining that they never wore more than four stars. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

US five-star rank holders
This needs clarification.

The article says that nine Americans have been promoted to five-star rank, and links to a footnote listing eleven persons, one of the eleven having an asterisked note. , and  say nine. says eleven, and lists the same eleven individuals as the article's footnote. The footnote says, "The following Americans have been promoted to five-star rank or above" just above the list of eleven individuals.

This source, currently cited in the article, points out that the five-star rank in the US military was created during WW-II. That point is also supported by this source, and probably elsewhere. Washington and Pershing, then, would not have held five star rank prior to the creation of that rank. As the article points out, Public Law 94-479 posthumously appointed George Washington to the [five star] grade of General of the Armies of the United States with an effective date of rank of July 4, 1976. As I understand it, then, a total of ten persons have held five star rank in the US military -- the nine five star WW-II commanders plus George Washington -- and John J Pershing had the title of "General of the Armies", but did not have five star rank. Numerous sources do, however, write of Pershing as having held five star rank (see e.g., ). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, bear in mind that various press or book sources can be just as confused about exactly which people were promoted to or hold "five-star" rank and which were promoted to or hold "higher-than-five-star" rank as anyone else is. Secondly, the US Department of Defense (DOD) is similarly just as confused, except that they say (essentially agreeing with the US Congress) that Washington, Pershing, and Dewey one way or another outranked the newly created (when created in late 1944) five-star ranks.  Congress stipulated that at least Washington and Pershing were senior to the newly created five-star rank recipients.  Whether Washington and Pershing were senior because they predated 1944 or because they held a higher still (higher than five-star) rank was not made clear by Congress.  I don't have any DOD documents at hand at the moment, but some of these (by the DOD that I've read in the past) even seem to contradict each other about exactly what the situation is with Washington and Pershing in particular.  I think the best that can be achieved in clarifying the present article is perhaps to track down some DOD statements or documents (even if they contradict each other) and put as honest an account of the confusion as possible into the present article (or into the article "Highest military ranks").  I am not convinced that the present article ("Five-star rank") is any more confusing than various DOD accounts or documents on the subject, but any clarification that you -- or anyone else -- can make to the subject is certainly welcomed. Finally, much thanks for the substantial research that you (Wtmitchell) have put into this issue already. --L.Smithfield (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Two Admirals - Not a Field Marshal in sight
I do not know how to edit this problem. There is a caption that reads
 * RAN admiral of the fleet shoulder board

The first however is army, not navy - it is thus a Field Marshal Montalban (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Montalban. Thanks for your posting. People like you making postings like yours are very helpful.
 * Unfortunately, in this case you are mistaken. The first image is indeed the insignia of a RAN admiral of the fleet shoulder board - click on the picture for more information.
 * Sadly, we do not have a public domain picture of the Australian Field Marshal insignia. (Hence, no insignia appears on Field marshal (Australia) - the closest we have is Australian Army officer rank insignia - i.e. a link to the British rank insignia, which is "similar".)
 * The Wikipedia copyright Nazis (no, I'm not unbiased) make sure that any non-Public-domain images only appear on the relevant subset of pages where they are allowed. This is usually only one page, and in this case it would be the Australian Field Marshal page. And then that page must contain the correct licensing templates.
 * In my biased opinion (and by-the-way, it is also the opinion of many un-biased editors), this is a painful imposition. (In the opinion of the unbiased, despite the pain, it is necessary.)
 * I hope you find the above useful. Please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page, should you wish.
 * Again, thanks for your posting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Should you ever wish to know how to make such an edit, please don't hesitate to ask me (via my talk page.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Navy themselves have no such insignia See: http://www.navy.gov.au/about/organisation/uniform-ranks

However I do see that they say this rank is only honourary Montalban (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Captain General Royal Marines
I know it's ceremonial but should we include the equivalent rank of Captain General (Royal Marines) in the UK section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.231 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Use in law enforcement
The sheriff of Los Angeles county has been photographed wearing five stars on his collar. knoodelhed (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So does the head of the California Highway Patrol. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article
This article (like several others but we need to start somewhere) is currently a mess so far as its scope is concerned. (And this is not a new problem.)

The first sentence A five-star rank in the United States military is the rank of a general or admiral whose badge is designated by five stars explicitly scopes the article to US ranks. The second sentence (the remainder of the lede paragraph) The rank is that of the most senior operational military commanders, and within NATO the rank is designated by the code OF-10 is ambiguous; The USA is part of NATO.

The rest of the article however refers to five star ranks generally, including Australia for example. The is consistent with the discussion at above. The case is made there that the term five star is used by the UK at least.

It seems to me that we do need an overview article on this rank, and that this is the title for that article. But that has repercussions for many other articles. Six-star rank for example has proven particularly contentious over the years.

OF-10 currently redirects to Ranks and insignia of NATO, but previously redirected here. 

As a start I think I should update the first sentence to indicate that the scope of this article is that of all militaries. However I seek comments first. I'd like to see consensus, and hopefully some future stability.

I've posted a heads-up at the relevant WikiProject. Andrewa (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This article should be about OF-10, and its equivalencies in militaries not structured along NATO lines. "five-star rank (other)" should be a subsection, describing those uses outside of military, as military would be covered in the rest of the article. most senior operational military commanders should be a separate article (considering the OF-11 six star rank; and that some militaries don't use OF-10 for that) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, with one qualification.


 * It seems to be OF-11 (currently a redlink), not OF-10, according to template:US officer ranks, http://www.infolagoon.com/military/united-states-of-america/army-officers.php (which appears to be an open wiki so not a reliable source) and http://www.militaryranks.us/army-officer-rank-insignia.htm (which may be more reliable but it's a bit hard to tell, and which contains a lot of interesting stuff if reliable).


 * So I do wonder why OF-10 once redirected here, and of course why this article currently reads OF-10. And similarly, the one-star rank article reads OF-6,  two-star OF-7,  three-star OF-8, ] and four-star OF-9.


 * But Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/04 reads in part OF-06 to OF-10 refers to flag officers (Generals/Admirals), which matches our current article content listed in my previous paragraph. Commons:Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2012 is the same discussion, and both continue OF-5: Colonel, Captain (navy), which is consistent with this but not with our article at Colonel (United States) (OF-6) or Captain (United States O-6), or of course the template which lists Colonel and navy Captain as OF-6.


 * As I said above, it's a big and long-standing mess, and this article is just a start.


 * I'm guessing that the template is correct, and that OF-6 corresponds to Colonel and not to Brigadier General nor to one-star rank. Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, OF-11, not OF-10, should be covered. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Consensus! (-> I was confused myself... the article does say OF-10 and the other officer rank articles are consistent with it and presumably all wrong too!


 * I wonder where all this misinformation came from? Have the NATO grades changed at some point? If so, the articles should say that, surely?


 * I wish we could get some of the WikiProject members to comment... maybe they're all too busy with the perennial debate over more than five stars (into which I have again blundered ). Many of our contributors seem to think that the games the US plays with Washington's rank are more important than getting the basic, verifiable facts about serving officers right... (-> Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops... see Ranks and insignia of NATO which explains it. Andrewa (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever the specification for the fifth flag/general officer rank above the top field/staff officer rank in US and NATO forces, and coverage of equivalencies in other militaries which use other rank structures. The six-star article would cover the sixth rank above field-grade in NATO or equivalent. (minding the peculiarity with Britain, being that Brigadier is a field rank) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Other affected articles
I will post heads-ups on the talk pages of articles that seem to assume that OF-6 corresponds to one star rank, in anticipation of correcting them. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
I'd like to set up autoarchiving of this page. This is in some ways preemptive, and is a response to the discussion at talk:Six-star rank, which is already manually archived and at which auto-archiving would now be a very good idea, but it's not nearly as neat to set it up after manual archiving has already been started, as has happened there. Archiving seems harmless to me if well implemented, and auto-archiving far less likely to cause any problems than manual archiving.

I propose to use lowercase sigmabot III, following the instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo with only the obvious substitutions where example is used in the example. These instructions include Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there, hence this section. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Generalfeldmarschall
The article currently seems to have a bet both ways on whether the Wehrmacht rank of Generalfeldmarschall was a five-star rank.

I think that, for example, Erwin Rommel, Wolfram von Richthofen and Friedrich Paulus all held five-star ranks, and that this rank should be covered by this article. There seem to be many examples in the literature referring to this rank as five-star, and I'm even a bit surprised that there is any discussion of it.

But discussion there has been, for example at Talk:Six-star rank, Talk:Six-star rank and Talk:Six-star rank, and there seems to be consensus towards the end of that last (long) section there that it should continue here rather than there. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi dear Andrewa, my expert answer is as follows: [[File:Wehrmacht Generalsrangabzeichen.jpg|thumb|420px|left|The sequence of ranks is as follows:


 * 1 Generalfeldmarschall (OF10, five-star rank, shoulder strap since 1942)


 * 2 Generalfeldmarschall (OF10, five-star rank, shoulder strap until 1942)


 * 3 Colonel general (OF9, four-star rank)


 * 4 General of the branch (OF8, three-star rank)


 * 5 Lieutenant general (OF7, two-star rank); and

V.r.-- HHubi (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 6 Major general (OF6, one-star rank).]]


 * Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the source for any Wehrmacht rank being correctly styled as if NATO "OF" system applied, as distinct from Bundeswehr? Cannot see any credible expert proposing such a conjecture as fact, and rewriting history. Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We two may need to agree to disagree on this. There are many instances in the literature of Generalfeldmarschall being described as five star. One has been provided to you, and you have rejected it with dubious arguments that could equally be applied to many other reliable sources as well, so there's not a lot of point in producing others, but Google will do it for you. And you have been invited to produce evidence that this is not correct, and you have ignored the invitation. You have not produced a shred of evidence supporting your view, so it is strange to ask for yet more evidence against it. Andrewa (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted that Andrewa's above comment (07:21, 8 September) does not give a straight or other answer to What is the source for any Wehrmacht rank being correctly styled as if NATO "OF" system applied, as distinct from Bundeswehr? Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to have that noted. Please note also that I didn't think it necessary to spell it out, but here's the straight answer... No source has been cited AFAIK. Not by me, certainly, as I think the question is irrelevant, and that this should be obvious. We cite authorities. We don't reject them on the basis of our own apparently unsupported ideas (or, if you like, preconceptions) as to what terminology they should use, instead we accept their terminology. I was wrong in thinking that it was obvious, obviously. (->


 * A reliable source has been cited which uses the phrase five star to describe Rommel's rank, and it was very easy to find. I'm guessing from the many ghits (the search URL was also supplied) that it won't be hard to find many others, or sources for the many other German Field Marshals of the time. I admit this is a guess at this stage. Doesn't seem a lot of point finding other sources unless you can provide some valid reason for rejecting the first one, as it's a reasonable guess that we'll just get the same response for them as I got for the first one.


 * May I ask in return for two straight answers.


 * Firstly, what authority, if any, supports the view that the question of any Wehrmacht rank being correctly styled as if NATO "OF" system applied, as distinct from Bundeswehr? has relevance here?


 * Secondly, what attempts, if any, have you made to find other sources that might use the term five star to describe Wehrmacht ranks? Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Straight answer to Andrewa 17:14, 8 September: Given that this page is for discussing improving the article, there is little point in replying to pointless questions. But, for the sake of elucidation, an answer is awaited to "What is the source for any Wehrmacht rank being correctly styled as if NATO "OF" system applied, as distinct from Bundeswehr?" Qexigator (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I honestly thought that No source has been cited AFAIK was a straight answer to that. Not quite sure how to proceed from there... Andrewa (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa (03:37, 10 September) No source has been cited AFAIK. Not by me (sc. Andrewa), certainly, as I think the question is irrelevant, and that this should be obvious. Yes, accept as "straight answer": in effect, you do not see the point of the question as asked, which in my view is the point at issue. As to Not quite sure how to proceed from there... , perhaps it would be a good thing to let it drop and attend to something more likely to improve any article of your choice. Qexigator (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is looking more and more like a classic can of worms and affects many other articles.


 * For example our field marshal article currently contains a footnote The equivalent of a Generalfeldmarschall in the German navy was Großadmiral (grand admiral). The rank of Generalfeldmarschall was abolished after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945. The claim that Großadmiral rather than Generaladmiral was the corresponding rank to Generalfeldmarschall is unsourced there and so far as I can see everywhere it appears in Wikipedia.


 * In fact we seem to regard all ranks of the Kriegsmarine as corresponding to the rank one grade junior of the similarly-named rank in the Royal Navy where one exists. If Uniforms and insignia of the Kriegsmarine is correct in saying Kriegsmarine styles of uniform and insignia had many features in common with those of other European navies, all derived from the British Royal Navy of the 19th century, this seems rather peculiar. A can of worms indeed (and I'm not the first to say that), with sources urgently required. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Andrewa's comment at 20:53, 10 September shows (subject to comments from others) that there is good reason for those editing those articles to make the necessary corrections. Qexigator (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The necessary corrections
states above Andrewa's comment at 20:53, 10 September shows (subject to comments from others) that there is good reason for those editing those articles to make the necessary corrections.

Two questions arise: What corrections are necessary, and how to most efficiently move towards making them? Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2014 od(UTC)
 * Will you (Andrewa, 03:10) be letting us know your proposals for that? Qexigator (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give appropriate notification of course. Andrewa (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

reichsmarschall etc
The lead includes a sentence implying that a rank in the Wehrmacht (uniquely held by Hermann Göring) and some other ranks created before or outside the US 5* ranking and the allied or NATO countries OF equivalents (OF-10) are superior to "5*":
 * Despite the rarity and seniority of five-star officers, the leadership of some countries have felt the requirement to propose, and in some cases to adopt, even more senior ranks such as admiral of the Navy (United States), General of the Armies (United States), generalissimo, generalissimus, reichsmarschall, first marshal of the empire, etc.

This is anomalous. If there is a source in respect of all or any of generalissimo, generalissimus, reichsmarschall, first marshal of the empire, it can only be dubious, and not sufficient to include in the lead, and not in this article at all without comment. Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is a source in respect of all or any of generalissimo, generalissimus, reichsmarschall, first marshal of the empire, it can only be dubious... Why? This appears to be the same circular argument you have used previously. Just because a source does not confirm your personal opinion does not make it dubious. Andrewa (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa's comment (10:47, 23 September). Noted that it fails to address the point If there is a source ...[it can not be]... sufficient to include in the lead, and not in this article at all without comment . My comment above (as previous comments), pointing to the known facts is not properly described as "personal opinion" or "circular argument". Noting the failure to rebut my comment above confirms that the opposite contention is indeed dubious. If there is a citable external source in actual rebuttal, where is it? If such a source is produced it will, of course, be given the attention it deserves by...Qexigator (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted. Also noted that this reply completely fails to address the specific issue I raised, that your particular argument If there is a source in respect of all or any of generalissimo, generalissimus, reichsmarschall, first marshal of the empire, it can only be dubious is circular. You state (again) that it is not circular, but any inspection of it will reveal otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not before 1944
Given that the article section "US five-star ranks" mentions only the ranks established in the 1940s, and that before then there were no such US ranks with 5* insignia authorised by Congress, what sense does it make to write: Even within the United States, the insignia of this rank has not always included five stars? The article will be improved by removing from the lead the misinformation those words imply. Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the US military has been evasive as to the relationships of ranks from different periods. These hypothetical relationships are of no military significance anyway, but of great political importance, so you can see their point of view. They don't want to offend the political types who hold a great deal of power over them if they can avoid it, better to say nothing unless compelled. But when on occasions they are forced to acknowledge some of these relationships, the results end up in a rather convoluted mess.


 * And it becomes even messier because it seems possible that the US has used the same rank name to mean different ranks over time (as have other countries).


 * But it seems clear that there were US officers senior to four-star rank before the 1940s, some of them equivalent in rank to the five-star ranks that already existed in other countries, and it's well documented that none of them used five star insignia (or six, seven... etc). At least two used a modified four star insignia, but are clearly superior to four star in rank. How would you express this? Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Does that amount to more than a heap of outlawed conjectural OR+SYN, as in  personal speculation doesn't qualify as encyclopedic? Qexigator (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it's a fact that Pershing's rank of General of the Armies was senior to later four-star rank, so no.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and the special positions of Pershing and Dewey are explicitly stated in the article, with full explanation in footnote 3. There is no need to say more.  Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"ceremonial rank"
The article will be improved by removing "ceremonial". It is supported in neither of the two places where it is mentioned. Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead states In times of peace, [five-star rank] is usually held only as a ceremonial rank. But the link redirects to Military rank which contains no mention of it, this should be de-linked.
 * The article mentions "ceremonial" only in Footnote 2: With the exception of Thomas Blamey and the Englishman William Birdwood, who both held the rank of field marshal, all other holders of Australian five-star ranks have been ceremonial, but no external source is given. If none can be found, it should be deleted. According to Footnote 1  Prince Philip is the only holder of these Australian ranks. Admiral of the fleet (Australia) states that the current and so far only holder of this rank is Prince Philip, who holds it as an "honorary appointment". Similarly, Prince Philip's honorary appointment as FM in the Australian Army is mentioned in Field marshal (Australia), but without citation.


 * The whole idea of a ceremonial rank needs to be either sourced or removed. There is some attestation to the term outside of Wikipedia, but the concept of an honorary rank is better attested  and seems to me a far better term for us to use. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope
This article covers all five-star ranks, not just US five-star ranks. It is not agreed whether these ranks existed before 1944 in other countries.

It seems to me that they did exist, but just weren't called five star until 1944 or later. In fact the US five-star ranks of 1944 were explicitly created to be equivalent to existing ranks such as the UK rank of field marshal. Accordingly, I have reverted this edit which scoped the article to 1944 and later ranks only. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

British Five Star ranks
With the recent post retirement promotion of Guthrie, Boyce, Walker and Stirrup to [honorary] five star rank, is this now a given for all retiring Chiefs of the Defence Staff? Should Richards and Houghton expect the nod in a couple of years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.43.45 (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Charles Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank (2012), Michael Boyce, Baron Boyce (2014), Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham (2014) and Charles Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank (2014)... It does seem possible and even likely that David Richards, Baron Richards of Herstmonceux and Nick Houghton will be similarly honoured in time, and if we can find a reliable source that says so we can add it to the article. But our personal speculations on it don't qualify as encyclopedic I'm afraid. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh I know there's no reliable source - hence the question on this page. It does seem to be a recent change of tack though (and you've put Guthrie twice, instead of Stirrup...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.43.45 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Images At Bottom of Page
The picture of the US General of the Air Force insignia is incorrect. It does NOT include the US coat-of-arms, like the General of the Army insignia did. It is and has always been the circle of 5 stars alone. Venqax (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Washington
I've read elsewhere that "General of the Armies" would be a six-star rank, equivalent to Generalissimo. If so, is Washington's inclusion in this article (other than to mention the possibility of a higher rank) germane? 70.30.100.138 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)