Talk:General of the Armies/Archive 4

Legislative history
For a capsule history of the relevant legislation prior to 1924, see 4 Comp. Gen. 317, which can be found online here or here, and which I've transcribed below:

A-5105, September 20, 1924, [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0210_67.sgml 4 Comp. Gen. 317]

ARMY PAY - RETIRED GENERAL

"An officer appointed General of the Armies, pursuant to the act of September 3, 1919,, upon his retirement is entitled, under the provisions of the act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stat. 118, to the pay and allowances he was receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of his retirement."

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, September 20, 1924:

There has been received your letter of September 8, 1924, presenting for decision the following question:


 * "Will General John J. Pershing, who was appointed pursuant to the act of September 3, 1919, be entitled, in his retirement, to the pay and allowances that he is receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of retirement?"

It is understood that General Pershing was placed on the retired list September 12, 1924. The act of September 3, 1919,, provides in part:


 * "That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; * * * Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act."

Section 4 of the National Defense Act, as amended by the act of June 4, 1920,, provides:


 * "There shall be one general, as now authorized by law, until a vacancy occurs in that office, after which it shall cease to exist."

Such difficulty as exists results from the fact that the act of 1919 revived the office of "General of the Armies of the United States," while the office in existence when the act of 1882, hereafter referred to, was passed was that of "General of the Army of the United States" (Sec. 1095, Revised Statutes, and act of July 25, 1866, ); and the fact that Section 1274, Revised Statutes, limits the pay of officers retired from active service to 75 percent of the pay of the rank upon which they are retired, while the act of June 30, 1882,, contains a proviso:


 * "That the General of the Army, when retired, shall be retired without reduction in his current pay and allowances; * * *."

The act of 1919 revived an office which had existed at some time in the past and which had lapsed either by repeal of the law creating it or by prohibition against filling it. Section 1094 of the Revised Statutes provides that the Army of the United States shall include "one general," with a proviso, evidently based on the provision contained in the act of July 15, 1870, :


 * "That when a vacancy occurs in the office of general or lieutenant-general such office shall cease, and all enactments creating or regulating such offices shall, respectively, be held to be repealed."

The office was, however, continued in existence, or in effect revived, for Gen. P. H. Sheridan by the act of June 1, 1888,, and lapsed with his death August 5, 1888. After the office was revived in 1866 and before the limitation upon filling a vacancy was enacted in 1870, Gen. William T. Sherman had succeeded to the office vacated by General Grant on his elevation to the Presidency.

The act of July 25, 1866,, provided:


 * "That the grade of 'General of the Army of the United States' be, and the same is hereby, revived; * * *."

Section 9 of the act of March 3, 1799,, provided:


 * "That a commander of the army of the United States shall be appointed and commissioned by the style of 'General of the Armies of the United States,' and the present office and title of Lieutenant-General shall thereafter be abolished."

It thus appears that the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States;" that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States;" and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theaters, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small Regular Army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army, and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, it would be fruitless to inquire. The office of general was revived, specifically the pay theretofore authorized for the General of the Army by the act of 1870 was fixed as the pay of the revived office, and, except as specifically otherwise provided, all other attributes of the office of general attach to the revived office. The provision for allowances was a modification of the prior laws applicable to the office of general, and the reference to the pay fixed by the act of 1870 was probably thought necessary to completely fix the emoluments of the revived office and was not a fixing of the pay proper of a new and different office. It should be observed that Congress was providing a reward for exceptionally meritorious service, and the design was to so specifically fix the emoluments that the matter could not become one of embarrassment to the recipient because of doubt as to what was intended to be provided.

In the matter of aids to the general, it has been held he was entitled to the number prescribed for the General of the Army, [http://books.google.com/books?id=AS4WAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q=&f=false 27 Comp. Dec. 275] and 280. Any other attribute, right, privilege, etc., of the office not specifically modified would necessarily also apply to the office, including the act of 1882. The act of 1882 first established the compulsory retirement of officers at the age of 64, and the proviso here considered was a part of that provision, evidencing a purpose to provide for the office holding the title of general otherwise than under Section 1274, Revised Statutes. The act of 1882 was applicable to General Sherman upon his retirement in 1884. General Sheridan died before reaching the age for retirement, and General Grant after the expiration of his terms as President was reappointed to the retired list under the act of March 3, 1885,, authorizing the appointment on the retired list of the Army of one person having the qualifications indicated "with the rank and full pay of such General, or General-in-Chief." Of the three officers who, prior to 1919, held the permanent title of general, but one reached the retired list upon retirement for age, and he received the benefits of the 1882 act. Another was placed upon the retired list by a special act and with a special pay, to wit, full pay of general. So far as a policy of Congress can be gleaned from the limited occasions arising, that policy would seem to be that the general when retired shall suffer no reduction of emoluments.

Answering your question specifically, I am of opinion that under the act of 1882 Gen. John J. Pershing will be entitled in his retirement to the pay and allowances he was receiving as an officer on the active list at the time of retirement.

In brief, in 1924 the Comptroller General ruled that Pershing's 1919 office of General of the Armies was identical to the office created in 1799 for Washington and revived in 1866 for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Since the Grant/Sherman/Sheridan office allowed its incumbent to retire at full pay, the Comptroller General ruled that Pershing was also entitled in his retirement to the full pay of his active-duty rank, rather than the standard 75 percent.

"It thus appears that the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of 'General of the Armies of the United States;' that it was revived in 1866 as 'General of the Army of the United States;' and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of 'General of the Armies of the United States.' That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theaters, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small Regular Army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army, and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, it would be fruitless to inquire."

The Army Judge Advocate General recounts a similar legislative history in the footnotes of his office's decennial compilations of the laws pertaining to the U.S. Army, e.g.:



The standard postwar references for the rank of General of the Armies are an influential pair of articles by Frederick Bernays Wiener, a prominent lawyer and retired Army colonel. Most U.S. Army secondary literature on this topic seems to cite one of these articles in the footnotes.

A five-part article, published in 1945, recounts the history of the ranks of lieutenant general, general, General of the Army, and General of the Armies:











A two-part article, published in 1970-71, discusses the five- versus six-star controversy in particular (but predates the 1976 Washington promotion).





Wiener concludes that Pershing's 1919 office was the same four-star generalcy created for (but not filled by) Washington in 1799 and revived for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan in 1866. Moreover, Pershing's four-star grade is actually junior to the five-star grade of World War II; the argument here, which I am not sure I completely buy, is that the 1919 clause &mdash; "any provision of existing law that would enable any other office of the Army to take rank and precedence over said office is hereby repealed" &mdash; was aimed specifically at Pershing's rival and Congress' nemesis, then-Army Chief of Staff Peyton C. March, and did not apply to grades created later; Wiener dismisses as legally unfounded the copious contemporary literature to the contrary, which he attributes to sentimental Pershing acolytes such as Stimson and Marshall. (This reasoning obviously would not apply to Washington's 1976 grade.)

- Morinao (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you - that's a fantastic bit of data though it also complicates the article a little. I suspect we'll be ok if we stick to the facts and report that in 1924 the Comptroller General said "this" rather than revising the relative ranking system throughout Wikipedia based on his comments. Also, thank you for wikifying the Comptroller General's comments. I'll need to see if I get get copies of the Frederick Bernays Wiener articles. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no question that Washington's 1976 grade is senior to the World War II five-star grades ("such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades in the Army, past or present" P.L. 94-479 ), so we wouldn't need any revision of the relative ranking system. Still, Wiener does seem to have a colorable argument that Pershing's 1919 grade (as distinct from Washington's 1976 grade) was actually junior to the five-star grades.


 * Wiener argues that Pershing inherited the same four-star grade conferred on Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, based on the legislative continuity set forth by the Comptroller General and others. The only difference is that clause in the 1919 law that repeals any existing laws that would allow any other officer to outrank Pershing. Wiener argues that that clause was targeted specifically at preventing Pershing from being outranked in the grade of General of the Armies by Peyton C. March, who had also been nominated for promotion to that grade.


 * During World War I there was a bitter rivalry between Army Chief of Staff March and AEF Commander Pershing over who was subordinate to whom. March's position was that a 1917 law granted the Chief of Staff "rank and precedence over all the officers of the Army." Pershing's position was that he "commanded the American Expeditionary Forces directly under the President.".


 * After the war, President Wilson asked Congress to pass legislation to reward both Pershing and March with the permanent grade of general. Without such a law, Pershing and March would lose their four stars, which were authorized only during the World War I emergency, and revert to their permanent two-star grades. By then Pershing was being lionized as the conquering hero, while March was viewed as merely a rear-echelon staff officer, so in his letter to Congress Wilson specified that Pershing should be given precedence over March ( quoted in  ):


 * "After mature reflection, I earnestly recommend that you give the permanent rank of general to John J. Pershing and Peyton C. March, expressing the law in such a way as to give precedence to General Pershing; and that you give the permanent rank of admiral to William S. Benson and William S. Sims."


 * Accordingly, the Act of September 3, 1919, that authorized Pershing's promotion also specified that "any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed." This was understood at the time to refer specifically to the May 12, 1917 law that elevated the Chief of Staff (i.e. March) over all other officers in the Army :


 * "Any provision of existing law which would enable any other officer to take rank over the holder of the office of 'general' was repealed. (This provision was introduced to do away with the provision of the act of May 12, 1917 which gave the chief of staff precedence over all other officers of the army)."


 * Note that the clause says "any provision of existing law...is hereby repealed." It does not say anything about not being outranked by grades created in the future. Moreover, the one clause in the 1944 five-star law concerning the General of the Armies states merely, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Act of September 3, 1919...or any other law relating to the office of General of the Armies of the United States." So Wiener argues that Pershing's seniority remained unchanged and certainly was not elevated over the newly created five-star grades, whatever Stimson and many members of Congress may have believed.


 * Could be, very interesting indeed. Since Pershing was never on active duty at the same time as the five stars we will never know.  Most of this was actually covered in the World War II section before the article got reverted due to the edit war.  A big point with Stimpson was to never say that Pershing outranked British Field Marshals - his words were so carefully chosen that he never confirmed or denied the 6 star status.  The Operation Downfall package was a totally different thing - plans were full speed ahead for a real 6 star general but it never made it past the very initial stages and was never considered official.  In a sense, the World War II effort was little more than a "good idea" and to this day the Army does not consider any of the material proposed for a 6 star general in 1945 (including the insignia) in any way official.  This is also one of the reasons why its very hard to find published material about he 1945 proposal. -OberRanks (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If MacArthur had actually been promoted to General of the Armies in the 1950's, maybe Pershing would have been retconned into a six-star grade at that point, but as it stands Pershing remains a (very senior) four-star.


 * (Again, it is incontestable that Washington's 1976 grade is senior to the five-star grades, since its authorizing act explicitly gives it precedence over all other grades, past or present. But Pershing never had that.)


 * - Morinao (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Best thing to do is to have the article broken up as before: cover the initial history, Pershing's appointment, WWII Operation Downfall proposal, MacArthur's 1950s effort, and Washington's 1976 appointment. As long as we avoid theories and speculation it should be a very fine article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago we discussed merging "General of the Army" and "General of the Armies" and the proposal failed for a number of reasons. It is also without a doubt that Pershing was considered a "special 4 star" during World War I - after all, he wore four gold stars. Pershing was elevated in his status only in 1944 when Stimpson stated that "the General of the Armies to be superior to the grade of General of the Army" and thus people started thinking of Pershing as if he were a 6 star general. When he died, there was even a proposal to have a six star flag created, appaarently. When Operation Downfall was in progress in 1945, the promotion order for MacArthur was going to have him wear 6 stars. Likewise, in 1955, Macarthur was to be "promoted" to General of the Armies from five star rank, seeming to imply it was a higher rank. If we could possible restore the World War II and MacArthur section of the article (which was never under contest by Corwin8 as far as I could tell), some of this text could be more easily accesable. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pershing didn't wear four gold starts during WWI. His promotion came afterwards - and it was that promotion which authorized him to design his own insignia.  Rklawton (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tail-end of WWI era was my understanding (Sep 1919). That is a good point, when he actually started wearing teh gold stars. -OberRanks (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The war ended the year before. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add the word "era", sorry. You are correct, he was promoted after the cessation of hostilities but before the demobilization of the National Army. By 1920, he was wearing gold stars and calling himself as a "General of the Armies" and signing documents that way. Should be included in the article, without a doubt, that he didnt start going by this rank until AFTER World War I. -OberRanks (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The military laws of the United States, 1915, Volume 1, Issue 915 (also titled War Department, Document No. 472.), a document prepared by the Office of the Judge Advocate General, United States Army and published by the Government Printing Office in 1915, directly states that the July 28, 1866 grade "General of the Army of the United States" is a revival of the March 3, 1799 "General of the Armies of the United States." The relevant section of Chapter XI of the document:




 * That seems to support the Comptroller's opinion, since the September 3, 1919 Act that authorized the office to which Pershing was promoted also specified that the office of General of the Armies of the United States authorized for Pershing was a revival of the office "General of the Armies of the United States":




 * Regarding the clause "for purposes of subsection (b) of this section only, the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present" in the 19 January 1976 Act, War Department, Document No. 472. concluded that the March 3, 1799 office of "General of the Armies of the United States" had ceased to exist because it was "not expressly referred to in any of the acts for the reduction or disbandment of the forces raised in contemplation of war with France." Specifically, it held that the office "ceased to exist in 1802, not having been mentioned in the act of March 16, 1802 (2 id., 132), which determined the military peace establishment."


 * The failure to include a "General of the Armies of the United States" in establishments after the death of General Pershing might explain why Congress felt that the grade "General of the Armies of the United States" needed to be "established" in 1976.

--Archimedean (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring World War II Section and MacArthur Section
Request that from this version, we restore only the sections entitled "World War II and Six Star rank" and "Douglas MacArthur and the Renewed Effort". These two sections were never in dispute and directly relate to discussions currently underway in the legislation section being discussed above. The edit dispute focused around the Pershing and Washington sections and not the WWII/MacArthur section. It would be easier to conduct discussions on article improvement if the most recent version of the uncontested sections were in the article. -OberRanks (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be clearer about how those two sections should fit around the current layout of the page? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably is actually a bad idea to attempt this - a bit messy with removing large chunks of the article. We can wait until the article gets unprotected, especially since the page version is now linked above for others to review. -OberRanks (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Highest rank?
The current article has "the main intention of Public Law 94-479 is to firmly state that George Washington is the highest ranked soldier of the United States Military."

I don't see that at all. Public Law 94-479 says "no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington." This allows for someone to have the same rank as Washington which is the case for Pershing, and Grant.

The statement is supported by the first footnote which has "Pershing does rank ahead of the Five-star Generals, he comes right after Washington." Unfortunately, if we use that as "canon" then it means the United States Navy's historical department has the final say in the United States Army's highest rank. :-) --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It couldn't be the case for Pershing or Grant. They couldn't be the same rank.  Their dates of promotion precede Washington's, and so they would outrank him if they had the same rank.  Since the law states that this is not the case, then they must have different ranks, and Washington's - which comes later - must be higher.  You'll have to explain the Navy bit; I don't understand.  Keep in mind that it is often not appropriate to apply logic to legislation.  Congress is not bound to be logical.  If Congress passes a law that says Washington is a "Private" and outranks everyone, then that's how it is.  And all the other privates still get yelled at by their sergeants.  Rklawton (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the main items which have discussed many times is to avoid anyone changing the article to reflect that Washington had a different rank than Pershing- this was the cause of all that seven star stuff that kept on coming up. The way I read it, it seems as if there is a rank called "General of the Armies" that was held by Pershing and Washington.  Grant held "General of the Army" which was the inspiration for the 1919 rank of General of the Armies.  Grant's rank was, itself, inspired by the 1799 idea for "General of the armies".  Then you have the 1945 version and the 1955 attempt - never succeeded but everybody thought they were for a six star general.  At last we have 1976 -  a supreme rank outranking everything else, even though it had the same name.  Confusing, but I have an idea as to how to write it all up. -OberRanks (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure Grant was a General of the Armies of the United States. Once I've nailed the 1799 issues down I'll look for Grant's authorization and the senate's consent.


 * Rklawton, Congress has not passed a law that says Washington outranks everyone. Rather, they were very specific in saying no one has a higher rank than Washington. This allows others to have the same rank as Washington. Congress was also specific in saying that General of the Armies of the United States (GoAoUS) has "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." Both Pershing and Washington are definitely GoAoUS and there's much strong evidence Grant was too.


 * Do you know which public law defines ranks people of the same grade based on their date of promotion? I want to read it to see if it's broad enough that we could apply it to GoAoUS without falling into WP:OR. Also, some of these ranks have sunset clauses such as the end of the war, retirement, or death. Is there a public law that specifically addresses the "rank" of someone, and their relative ranking, when their former rank no longer exists? I suspect, absent a ruling from Congress on this specific issue, that the Wikipedia article needs to be silent on the relative ranking of Grant, Pershing, and Washington.


 * The "Navy bit" is that the Wikipedia article made a claim about the "main intention" of Public Law 94-479. It supported this claim with two items. 1) The public law itself which flatly contradicts the claim. 2) a citation from the Navy (see this) that put Washington ahead of Pershing with "Pershing does rank ahead of the Five-star Generals, he comes right after Washington." If the Wikipedia article is using this citation as its basis for the claim that "Washington is the highest ranked soldier of the United States Military" then we have the Navy, and not Congress or the Army making that call about an Army rank. Also, I believe it's OR to say Washington is "highest ranked soldier of the United States Military" as the Navy did not say that either. Congress specifically made GoAoUS one of the "grades of the Army" and not the entire "United States Military." The U.S. Army in turn issued Orders 31-3. I'm not aware of similar orders stating Washington's grade or rank within the other armed services.


 * This is why I've been saying we need to be careful to stick to the exact wording the Congress and/or the Army used and to not add any interpretation of our own. If a reliable source, such as the U.S. Comptroller General, makes a statement then we can use his or her statement but again need to be careful to stick to the exact wording and the context. For example, "in 1924 the U.S. Comptroller General ruled 'xxx' in response to 'xxx'."


 * WP:NOR is explicit on this point. Any rewording needs to be very careful to not add or remove any meaning or to add any interpretation, arguments, speculation, ideas, etc. unless we show that it comes from a reliable source. Somewhere there is guideline or essay that says "show, do not tell." We can "show" the evidence to the reader and if they conclude that Bugs Bunny outranks GoAoUS then that's their business. We can't "tell" the reader anything, regardless of how strong a case we believe we have. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of MK's points. I also recently rewrote the history section to cover the various incarnations of this rank. Edits and changes to reflect more accuracy are more than welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with NOR, and I'm confident we'll proceed with all due caution. My argument "the ranks are different" is based on the idea that the others would outrank him because their dates of rank would be earlier.  OK, and to argue against myself, it would be just as easy to read this as "the ranks are the same" and the date of rank doesn't matter because Congress over-road this convention (or law) by placing Washington over the others explicitly.  Ha!  So in the end, if we avoid OR and doing too much interpretation for ourselves (something you two are not inclined to do anyway), then I'm sure I'll be satisfied with your results.  I think looking up rank precedence would be a helpful and wished I'd thought of that.  It'll be interesting word-smithing this for the readers so that it's short, simple, and supported.  However, I feel we've now got the right editors working on it.  Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: Confusion results when the terms rank and grade are used interchangeably. The two terms are conflated in everyday usage, but they can have distinct technical meanings. Grade refers to the officer hierarchy (major, colonel, general, etc.), while rank, in the strictly legal sense, refers to seniority within a grade. Most of the time the distinction between the two terms is inconsequential, but here it's probably a good idea to keep the distinction in mind.

For example, above someone wrote: "Public Law 94-479 says 'no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington.' This allows for someone to have the same rank as Washington...." This is incorrect. The law might allow for someone to hold the same grade as Washington—it doesn't specifically say—but what it does say is that that no one will be outranked by him. Keeping the language straight will probably help in understanding the laws and getting the article right. Cheers. —Kevin Myers 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also not to be confused with pay grade. In the U.S. some pay grades encompass more than one rank.  E4 can be either a Specialist 4 or a Corporal, and E9 includes three ranks:  Sgt Major, Command Sgt Major, and Sgt Major of the Army.  While no officer ranks share the same pay grade, there's no reason they can't.  Also the same "name" for a rank could apply to different pay grades.  For example, an Army or Marine "Captain" (03) is far lower ranking than a Navy "Captain" (O6).  Incidentally, a Marine captain serving on board a navy vessel is addressed as "Major" as a courtesy and to prevent confusion.  Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Order
I'm back. Sorry, but my job doesn't permit me the luxury of sitting at a computer all day (I used to but I found it too lonely). I haven't read any of the changes to this date. I just want to emphasize my prime point here. Because of George Washington's importance in U.S. history, and because he is, forever more, the highest ranking military officer in the history of the U.S., I feel strongly that George Washington MUST be at the TOP of this article. Only two U.S.officers have the rank of GOA - Pershing (maybe, maybe not) and Washington. It's completely illogical to put Washington near the very bottom of this article. And it's totally ridiculous to put him below people that don't even hold the rank in the first place! Corwin8 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Feelings have little to do with this article. It's an historical subject and logical to present the subject in chronological order. If you want to feel better about it, then consider that with Washington at the end, the article closes on a high note. I wouldn't object to putting Washington in the lead, either. However, telling us what MUST be done is the hight of tendentious editing and will get you subject banned. Let us know if you are going to "insist" that something "must" be done, and I will initiate the subject ban process forthwith. On the other hand, if you're willing to work *with* other editors, I have no objection. Rklawton (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The new rewrite has an intro history section in the beginning and Washington is actually talked about as one of the first things in the article. We could even move the portrait back up there. The events of 1976, though, should stay at the end of the article because, from a historical point of view, that is the end of the story. -OberRanks (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The picture of Washington is now the first thing in the article with a narrative about his status. -OberRanks (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1976 vs 1776
I'm get a bit suspicious of several anon ip address which appear to be "hitting" the article, making sneaky changes back and forth between Washington's date of rank as 1776 and 1976. Sometimes the ips will change it, and then immediately change it back while other times the ips will change it to 1776 and leave it, apparently hoping no one will notice. This on top of the edit warning message clearly displayed stating not to do this. These changes and reverts are cluttering up the edit history and they appear to have recently started, right after the article was unprotected. Can we investigate the source of the ip addresses? If they are all coming from the same place, then it might be a single editor with a grudge or a bone to pick and they are using this method to disrupt the article. -OberRanks (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ip addresses resolve to different locations. One is in the Pittsburgh area, one in France, one in Tampa and another in the southern U.S. There really is no further way to associate these with users unless a checkuser request can be justified which it cannot at the moment. We just need to keep it watchlisted. JodyBtalk 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not specific and related tags
See Talk:6 star rank for some related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant, Sherman and Sheridan
The lead of this article stated that Grant, Sherman and Sheridan held the same rank as Pershing and Washington and outranked the World War Two five-star generals. However this was contradicted later on in the article, and is also contradicted at the article List of United States military leaders by rank. I have therefore changed the lead to make it consistent with the evidenced assertion that they were equivalent to the modern four-star rank. If you change it back, please add a source, preferably after discussing it at Talk:List of United States military leaders by rank, as there had been much discussion of sources there already. Richard75 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I fact-tagged the Richard75 edit results as we don't have a source, preferably a public law passed by Congress, that defines the relationship between the civil war area and World War II area ranks of "General of the Army." I suspect Richard75's version is more accurate than the one he replaced. I personally suspect the the relative rankings were never defined. In the 1890s and 190xs there were no generals at all. Once generals were resurrected there was no reason to define their ranks relative to the ranks held decades earlier. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 02:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That info isn't really even relevant to this article. The comparison can be discussed at the General of the Army rank, but here all we need to really say is that such a lower rank existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs) -19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea and so fixed the article to remove the comparison. I also found that someone had recently redirected General of the Army of the United States to this article. I changed that to point at the General of the Army article which has a section about the post-Civil War area rank. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies of the United States - public law 66-45
I uploaded the text of Public Law 66-45 to http://sites.google.com/site/marckupper/uploaded. The quality is poor as it's from an original document that apparently had the pages stuck together, it was then microfilmed, and I took a photo of the section on the microfilm reader. Before uploading this to Public Law 66-45 I'd like to make sure I've transcribed the text accurately. Please feel free to edit the text directly rather than noting "so and so needs to be corrected."



of the United States.
 * valign=top|  CHAP. 56.&mdash;An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies
 * valign=top|  CHAP. 56.&mdash;An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies

''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,'' That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the Presi- dent is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of exist- ing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.

Approved, September 3, 1919. [H. R. 7594] - [Public, No. 45.]
 * valign=top style="margin-left: 5px; | September 3, 1919.

Army. Appointment of Gen- eral of the Armies of the United States, au- thorized.

Pay, etc. Vol. 16, p.320

Precedence of other officer repealed. Vol. 40, p. 46.

Proviso. Limitation.
 * }
 * }

Thank you. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should give a source for the above
 * Public Laws of the United States of America
 * Passed by the Sixty-Sixth Congress.
 * 1919-1921
 * In the table of contents
 * General of the Armies. An Act Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States. September 3, 1919. 283.
 * The "283" at the end is the page number. I found the description in the table of contents interesting as it says it's creating the office while in the body of the law it's being revived. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Using Google I found some other copies of the above law and compared them. It is identical to versions in:
 * The federal statutes annotated: containing all the laws of the United States, Supplement, 1919
 * The text I transcribed is a little different than:
 * Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, Volume 4 identical wording except it's missing the sentence at the end with "Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act."
 * A-5484, NOVEMBER 6, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 428 Identical except it's missing "and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed:"
 * The Chicago daily news almanac and year book for 1920 - The wording is identical though their style guide apparently asks that the rank capitalization be "general of the armies of the United States" and it's an "act of congress" instead of "Act of Congress."
 * About.com page about the rank Random word and puctuation changes. I'm guessing this is a poor transcription that was also never double-checked. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this to Public Law 66-45 and so any future changes should be made at that location. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
I reverted the recent move to decapitalize the word "Armies". Every source and every document about this rank (including the Senate bill displayed in this very article) lists the rank as "General of the Armies" with a capital "A". -OberRanks (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the editor who moved the article was doing a maintenance sweep. Someone's already asked at User talk:Kwamikagami if this was per a discussion. In looking at the edit comments the first move was per move per MOS and usage in article, he then plowed ahead with claiming per MOS on what look like 100+ page moves involving military ranks for many countries. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Page Move
Yet another page move attempt, both here and at General of the Army (United States). I asked Shem1805 to visit the talk page here, since these moves are against consensus and also contradict the sources rather than continue to move these pages back and forth. -OberRanks (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly articulated at MOSCAPS and (for titles) at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It's also based on basic English usage (although what the military does with English is quite another thing...) All I've been doing is general housekeeping. What is your consensus for reverting me against the MOS? Shem (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No disrespect to what you are trying to do, but these are not ordinary ranks, rather special titles established by Congress - every primary and secondary source clearly lists the ranks as capitalized. I even linked the primary source on your talk page which shows both ranks as capitalized. This would be the same as attempting to move President of the United States to "President of the united states". Same kind of thing. -OberRanks (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand exactly where you're coming from - I used to think the same way myself and occasionally come across old edits of mine with every rank capitalised. But, sources are not relevant to the discussion; if they were we would capitalise every other word in an article about the military, because most sources for this stuff are the military, and they are capitalise like Old High German. What does bug me is the instant revert, followed by the same again. If you're right, then let the discussion play out on this page - if you're not, well then my edits are in accordance with the MOS and should be allowed to stand. And don't think I'd ever dream of moving President of the United States to "President of the united states" - that is just a straw man. Shem (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we now have edit warring, I will leave this alone until others comment. Ignoring primary sources in favor of Wikipedia MOS makes absolutely no sense. The MOS also states "in general" ranks are not capitalized. These are not ordinary ranks - they are special titles established by Congress which are clearly capitalized. -OberRanks (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the key point here is whether they are ranks or titles - if the latter, then I can see why it would make sense to keep the caps. But the article says "rank" throughout ("the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army" in the lede, for example, and 109 other occasions). I'm interested to hear a few other opinions, as I believe OberRanks is. Shem (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Admiral of the Navy (United States) moved as well. Again, clearly listed as capitalized per the Congressional order establishing this special rank. It looks like the only one you haven't hit yet is General of the Air Force (United States). Before you do, lets get this resolved before making unnecessary page moves which might have to be changed back later. -OberRanks (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, seeking out the same user  who previously moved these articles against consensus is borderline canvassing. The might be said of me for asking Marc for his opinion, but he is a major contributor to this article. I believe the request to ask Kwamikagami to visit this page was done for the sole reason that it is known he will support your desire for a page move. I would suggest backing off completely and let neutral editors enter the discussion without either of us contacting anyone else. -OberRanks (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea that Kwami had previously moved this article - I drew his attention to this discussion because we've worked together on implementing the MoS in this regard at other articles - as can be very plainly seen from the context. I've backed off already, and am perfectly inclined to assume you're a good guy - I'd appreciate the same in return. Shem (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rank vs. title
Agreed that the key point is the rank vs. title distinction, although even if it's treated as a rank many style guides make an specific exception for this case to avoid ambiguity.

The current U.S. government style guide treats General of the Army/Armies as a title for capitalization purposes:
 * Titles of the military:
 * General of the Army(ies): United States only; Supreme Allied Commander; Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Joint Chiefs of Staff; Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; the Chief of Staff; but the commanding general; general (military title standing alone not capitalized)

The government's been pretty consistent about treating the Pershing-era General of the Armies as an office associated with a special pay grade. Here's an example from the 1920's that distinguishes between the capitalized General of the Armies office and the lower-case four-star general grade:
 * Gen. Pershing did not become "General of the Armies of the United States" until September 3, 1919, when that office was revived. The act of October 6, 1917, did not authorize the appointment of a "General of the Army of the United States" within the meaning of the acts of July 25, 1866, and July 15, 1870, but did authorize the appointment of the Chief of Staff and the commander of the United States forces in France as generals for the period of the then existing emergency only, and provided that the pay of the grade of general shall be $10,000 a year with allowances appropriate to said grade as determined by the Secretary of War.
 * The pay of the office of General of the Armies of the United States is $13,500 a year....

Another government example distinguishing between lower-case grades and upper-case General of the Armies, from Pershing's entry in the Official Army Register (e.g. 1947 ed., see also MacArthur's entry on p. 1502 in the same volume for upper-case General of the Army):
 * Pershing, John J....Cadet M. A. 1 July 82; 2 lt. 6 Cav. 1 July 86; 1 lt. of Cav. 20 Oct. 92; capt. 2 Feb. 01; brig. gen. 20 Sept. 06; accepted 20 Sept. 06; maj. gen. 25 Sept. 16; accepted 30 Sept. 16; gen. (emerg.) 6 Oct. 17; accepted 8 Oct. 17; General of the Armies of the United States 3 Sept. 19; accepted 8 Sept. 19; retired 13 Sept. 24.

General of the Army is clearly a rank, but other style guides often make a capitalization exception for this specific case to avoid ambiguity:
 * Capitalize titles that would otherwise be ambiguous....Thus, Foley, the speaker of the House could be unclear, especially to a young reader; even if senator and president are not capitalized, Speaker of the House often should be, and stylebooks that prescribe equivalents of Rule 3-14 often make this title an exception. Similarly, General of the Army, a specific rank above four-star general, would often be ambiguous if lowercased.

Same thing for Admiral of the Navy: it was considered both an office and a rank, and was capitalized to avoid confusion with a four-star admiral in the Navy.

As if that's not confusing enough, the most common but infrequent alternatives to capitalizing the entire titles are "general of the armies of the United States" and "general of the Army". "Army" is always capitalized because it's general of the Army, but "armies" is lower-case because the United States has several field armies.

Stupid name for a rank, if you ask me. Fleet admiral is much cleaner. :) -Morinao (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "both rank & title' Indeed. I can't imagine leaving "Armies" without cap. TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The MOS clearly treats rank the same as titles i.e. as common nouns: "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles". The important distinction (perhaps what you intend here with different terminology?) is between rank (common noun) and formal name of an office (proper name): "The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun, so it is correct to write 'Louis XVI was the French king' or 'Louis XVI was King of France'". Joja  lozzo  18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My aim was to show that even style guides that use lowercase-rank/uppercase-office treat General of the Armies as an office, as illustrated by the internally consistent examples from reliable sources that distinguish between the "grade of general" and the "office of General of the Armies."
 * Moreover, even though General of the Army is a rank and not an office, many style guides that lowercase ranks still make a specific exception for General of the Army for clarity's sake. - Morinao (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Page Move
With the page now move protected due a third page move attempt, this is an attempt at a consensus. The proposal is to move "General of the Armies" to "general of the armies" due to this entry at a Wikipedia MOS page. The same proposal is apparently present at all the other United States "super rank" articles, mainly Admiral of the Navy (United States), General of the Army (United States), and General of the Air Force (United States).
 * Oppose: These are special ranks created by Congressional edict and primary sources clearly list the ranks as requiring capitalization due to their special nature as both ranks and titles. The primary source listed in this very article confirms two of the ranks as capitalized in a United States Congressional document. Another user also located a professional style manual which shows the ranks capitalized as well . -OberRanks (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The question is not where these are ranks, that much is definately established. If they were simply ranks, we should be following MOS guidelines. The question should be if these ranks also constitute as titles. When I look at how U.S. law is usually written, they tend to follow grammatical form. Why would congress capitalize these "special ranks" and not others? Neovu79 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be implied that this discussion pertains only to General of the Armies. We would have to repeat this at the other articles, but perhaps summarily depending on the outcome here. -OberRanks (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for General of the Armies only: after reading OberRanks's above document stating that is is also a position of office, I'm inclined to support leaving General of the Armies alone, however that still doesn't show that the other ranks, i.e. General of the Army (United States) is also a title. Neovu79 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose move based on clarity. If someone writes "George Washington was a general of the armies" then the reader has no idea if Washington was a General, a General of the Army for multiple armies, or, a General of the Armies." Thus I'd have an exception to MOSCAPS for General of the Army, General of the Armies, and Admiral of the Navy as the rank's titles have common English words that are also commonly used in that order when the title of that rank is not the intent of the writer. -(sectioning of comment by Marc Kupper, time stamp below)
 * As these articles are about ranks created and defined by the U.S. Congress it makes sense to match the wording and capitalization used in the public laws in both the article title and within the body of the articles about those ranks. Both Public Law 66-45 (when the rank was revived when the intent that President Wilson promote Pershing in 1919) and Public Law 94-479 (which prompted G. Washington) consistently use General of the Armies of the United States throughout the text of those laws. Public Law 78-482 was the law that created General of the Army which also uses that case consistently, and refers to General of the Armies of the United States using that case. PL 78-482 is also a good example of where the use of capitalization in the rank titles provided clarity on what was being referred to. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the wording used should follow the official record, as shown below, in Public Law 66-45. The way it is stated therein should take precedence. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the overwhelming consensus here that the original change to "general of the armies" was not supported, I've gone ahead and changed the article back to its original state with the correct capitalization. I suggest we do the same at General of the Army (United States). -OberRanks (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on clarity, per Marc Kupper; and common usage. I'm not sure that capitalization in the original legislation is the final word, given that the law creating the five-star Navy rank defines it as "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" but the title eventually collapsed to just "fleet admiral," even in subsequent legislation (e.g. Officer Personnel Act of 1947). However, "The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun," according to WP:Job titles, so I would capitalize both General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy as being more offices than ranks, which is how most legislation and newspaper style guides seem to have treated them. Also, it's pretty rare to find a reference where they're not capitalized, so it would be a big divergence from the norm to use lowercase. I would also capitalize General of the Army and General of the Air Force to avoid confusion with a general in the Army/Air Force (an exception borrowed from a non-military style guide ); and Army/Navy/Air Force should be capitalized regardless, since in all of these cases they are the proper nouns naming specific organizations, not the common nouns for generic groups of soldiers/sailors/airmen. - Morinao (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find all this chaff about what the Congress capitalise pretty irrelevant; a quick Google search brings this (a Senate document) as the first hit. All the ranks in it are capitalised, and that's not what we do at Wikipedia. Ergo, if US state bodies are in the habit of capitalising ranks wherever they appear, their capitalisation of "general of the army" (etc) has no bearing. I'm open to the suggestion that the articles under discussion are offices, but I don't think it's been shown that they are, and as written the article currently describes them as ranks throughout. I'm also going to apply the MoS to all those field marshals and fleet admirals that OberRank so blithely recapitalised - I take it that the MoS does apply in this case? Shem (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that page to be different considering that it's a "list" of pending officer confirmations. I find that lists in general don't follow proper grammar. Neovu79 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I lost you there. I haven't edited either the article about field marshal or fleet admiral for quite some time. -OberRanks (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's easy to find instances of ordinary ranks being capitalized, but can you find a solid reference for lowercase "general of the armies," "admiral of the navy," "general of the army," or "general of the air force"?
 * Also, if you don't like the references already on this talk page, what kind of evidence would you like to see to convince you that General of the Armies is an office as well as a rank? - Morinao (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shem, Congress is the body that created and defined these ranks. Thus what they say is relevant. The most reliable sources are the text of the public laws because for each of those many people have poured over them in detail to make sure they got everything right. As to if they are "offices" - see Public Law 66-45 which is for "the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States". In my mind, an overriding goal for Wikipedia is clarity and consistency. WP:MOS exists to promote this. The MOS does not demand that we slavishly adhere to every directive if that will cause an article's wording to be unclear. The WP:MilTerms part of MOS also states that consensus on the capitalization of military terms gets handled via consensus on the talk pages which is what we are doing here. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose only on the ground of clarity, whatever the sources say. The overriding principle should be to avoid ambiguity, as discussed above. Richard75 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The question in my mind is not whether the public law 66-45 capitalizes, as following such things would cause us to bounce all over the map and thus are not a good guide for our own usage. The question is whether this is a rank (no caps) or a title (caps). I think either argument could be made it this case.—kwami (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Style governed by sources is inappropriate except where a very broad consensus is achieved. I think a distinction needs to be made between usage that refers to the rank (which is lower-cased except when followed by a person's name, the same as job title) and usage that refers to the correct formal name of an office (which is capitalized). I propose that when the office is being referred to that "the office of" proceed the capitalized term to remove confusion with references to the lower-cased rank. I can support the capitalized article title assuming the precise topic is the office and not the rank and as long as office and rank are clearly distinguished in word and style. Joja  lozzo  17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a draft attempt to resolve Office/rank distinctions, preserving the article title and references to the office of General of the Armies but lower casing references to the rank of general to the armies. Here is a diff with the current version of the article. Please edit at will. Joja  lozzo  18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this invents a distinction that does not exist. In 1919 Congress created an office of General of the Armies whose occupant outranked all other Army officers, per PL-66-45 below, and there was no rank of "general of the armies" separate from the office. Then in 1976 Congress created a rank -- not an office -- with the exact same name. Distinguishing between an uppercase General of the Armies office and a lowercase general of the armies rank would be confusing, ambiguous, historically unfounded, and unique to Wikipedia.
 * If you can find a reliable source to cite that dual capitalization for this title, I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't think you can. - Morinao (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and such a thing will open the door again to this idea that George Washington held some kind of 7 star mega rank above Pershing. That problem previously caused a tremendous edit war on the article leading to numerous board discussions, a page protection, and extensive discussion. It was such an issue that to this day there is a permanent notice on the page cautioning users to avoid any reference to Washington holding a different rank from Pershing. Morinao speaks wisely - very wisely. -OberRanks (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, like "Secretary of Homeland Security" this term is a unique entity and proper noun, so should always be capitalised. XLerate (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, any and all page moves and edits which use lowercase. Based on the sources listed, capitalizing each word except "of" and "the" appears to be the correct syntax. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Annoyed. Encyclopedia editors should be aware of the difference between the terms "rank" and "grade". It's painful reading the above discussion. But yeah, the page is at the right place. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies vs. General of the Armies of the United States
This article does not make it clear that the rank of General of the Amries of the United States (the rank Washington recieved in 1976), and General of the Armies (Pershing's rank) are seperate ranks to be treated as such. As proof here is the public law by which Washington recieved his rank.

As it says right in the text the grade is that of General of the Armies of the United States. It also states, that MacArthur was to be promoted to this rank not that of General of the Armies here.

File:Douglas_MacArthur_promotion_order_to_General_of_the_Armies.jpg The point of all this is that ranks are being hoplessly confused.--Questions99 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was beat to death over numerous discussions. They are NOT separate ranks. The situation got to such a point that a warning template was added to the article to discourage users unfamiliar with the article history from adding the very info which is being proposed here. Per the template:


 * Its been agreed upon to avoid any attempt to state that General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are separate ranks. -OberRanks (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not to be ambushed as an attempt to say they are seperate ranks. I am farmiliar with this topic. This is to point out an obvious confusing similarity beetween the to "ranks" if you will. You have not given any reason for your position. I think they are because, Washington has Superiority to Pershing and all whom may ever obtain his rank. Clearly I am not in agreement with User:OberRanks, so that alone shows the falseness of the Template disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questions99 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That template was placed by an administrator (not me) after massive consensus and also as an effort to warn future editors that any changes along these lines would be seen as an effort to re-spark an edit war and add nonsensical information. In fact, this is actually a "revert-on-sight" issue and not a content dispute, since to state there is a 7 star rank above Pershing which Washington held is clearly false information - much like stating that an atom of hydrogen has an atomic number of 17 instead of 1; clearly false and therefore immediately revertable.


 * Not that this is what you're doing, just laying out the history of why this point must be taken so strictly. Every two to three years since article creation, there has always come to pass that a user will attempt to separate Pershing and Washington's rank under the idea that there is a "7 star rank" in the U.S. military - the last time this happened, the user attempting to make the changes was very nearly banned after trying to put forward a radical theory that Pershing's promotion has been forged and he never really was a General of the Armies. After edit warring, block warnings, and finally a back down under threat of a topic ban, it was agreed by total consensus to place the template to avoid any future such edit wars.


 * In any event, the article also clearly spells this all out in the first sentence that there is a "long title" and a "short title", much like "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" which is the official full name of the rank Fleet Admiral. Same concept here and we don't need to change it. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see this has come up again. This matter has been discussed several times and is in the archives herein. I think the article is clear enough on the matter, and consensus was reached. Therefore, it should not be changed and I agree with OberRanks. Let the WP:DEADHORSE be. Kierzek (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Late in the game here, but several Wikipedia administrators have advised that the "7 star general" material is to be reverted on sight per WP:HOAX. -O.R.Comms 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable six-star insignia?
This page (and several others related on Wikipedia) show the six star insignia shown here. It's claimed to have been made by the Institute of Heraldry and put into McArthur's file as a draft insignia in case he had been promoted to General of the Armies. The reference provided is his personnel file, but that's not easy to access without paying a fee or traveling to St. Louis. Does anyone have the actual document or can you provide another reference? There's some circumstantial evidence that this is a hoax. I'm tempted to pay the $60 to get an official copy of his record to verify, but perhaps someone can save me the trouble? Circumstantial evidence against are (1) The Institute of Heraldry's own webpage that does not show this design and says only this about General of the Armies "The title of General of the Armies was established after World War I. No special insignia was developed and General Pershing wore four stars. He was the only person appointed as General of the Armies." (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Insignia_Rank/general_officers.aspx); and (2) Unverified blog post of someone claiming to have access to the files and having found no such design (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/102630-general-of-the-armies-6-star-insignia/). It could very well be that the claim for the six-star design is true, but additional evidence would certainly be nice. RelativelyCertain (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I've seen the package, its in a large brown manila folder in box #7 of his nine box record. I've heard in recent years, his record was put on CD, but the cost is several hundred dollars due to his status as a "PEP Record" (Person of Exceptional Prominence).  The 1945 six star general proposal is also mentioned in several auto-biographical texts and was attached as an addendum to the 1955 Congressional proposal package.  Authors who have cited the package in his record text I know of first hand are John Keegan - I think Steven Ambrose also wrote of this as well.  I should also bring up that when this insignia first appeared on Wikipedia, now a few years back, it was heavily discussed and verified by some pretty seasoned editors, most of them connected with the Douglas MacArthur article.  Side note, that blog is actually really fascinating.  It mentions a second way this insignia might appear which I have never seen before.  I might just take this to the horse's mouth...write the Secretary of the Army directly and lay out what we know, what we've read, and ask what the official stance is on this insignia.  That will take some time, and there is no guarantee of an answer, but I will share one when I hear and scan any letters I receive.  P.S.- Meanwhile, some other editors more familiar with the MacArthur autobiographies cited on his main article can perhaps add better citations here. -OberRanks (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) -OberRanks (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I contacted the Secretary of the Army and will post here the response. Should be interesting... -OberRanks (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Answer!
I just received a VERY large package in the mail from the IOH about this rank insignia. Very fascinating stuff - there is a six star general "projected" insignia, recognized in 1964 by the Army but never worn or held by anyone. The insignia also was expanded to cover possible promotions of Navy and Air Force officers to this rank - possible meaning that a Navy officer so promoted would be known as a General of the Armies. On top of everything - and this a bombshell - the 6 star sketch in MacArthur's record from 1945 is completely unofficial. It was drawn by a member of his staff with no endorsement or recognition. The projected insignia in 1964 resembled the 1945 sketch, but during WWII there was nothing officially recognized. When I have time, I will revamp the article with all this new info and upload some of the PD images the Army mailed me. But, at last, we have an answer. -OberRanks (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

World War II Cancellation
According to his service record, the proposal to promote MacArthur to General of the Armies was dropped on August 18th, 1945 (before the Japanese surrender). The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. That isn't the case and needs to be clarified. -OberRanks (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's now 0330 here, so this will be brief.
 * Yes, the FORMAL surrender was 2 Sept, but Gyokuon-hōsō was 15 Aug, 3 days before 18 Aug.
 * The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. - Agreed. But not JUST because of the bombs.
 * The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. - No. The current version is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as "the Army waited until after September 2nd", which, as we both agree, would be wrong.
 * Yes, we both agree that needs clarification.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I put four days after the surrender because the time difference made V-J Day August 14 in the U.S., which is presumably where the Army office that cancelled the promotion was located. - Morinao (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your redraft. As to 3 or 4 days, I'm not fussy and will "go with the flow". Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Regarding the date, I figured the Pentagon is in the same time zone as Times Square and that famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse is dated August 14. - Morinao (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the appropriate place to insert my question on this subject. While the three main leaders of the Allied Forces of WWII were Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, it's my understanding that even though they collaborated and strategized together, Roosevelt was ultimately put in charge of ground forces (even though deferring to advisors). Thus with/out the title, he would be General of the Armies. This has been my understanding, but I have not yet found reference to this arrangement on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Off the cuff: POTUS is commander in chief of the US military. Pershing, the one and only lifetime appointment, was necessarily subordinate to the Presidents. He died in 1948, after being hospitalised from 1944. Roosevelt had died in office in 1945. Ike was Supreme Allied Commander. In no way was Roosevelt ever regarded as general or supreme commander of the land forces of the allies. Qexigator (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for the corrections, Qexigator. Yes, that is the title I was referring to, Supreme Allied Commander. I thought that Supreme Allied Commander was virtually the same position as General of the Armies, just under a different name and an international office. On the S.A.C. page, I found the clarification I needed in the NATO section.
 * Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Revision - it would seem that I was actually referring to Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force by description, but still only generalized (no pun intended) by the use of 5 Stars of General of the Army during WWII. Again, not comparable to General of the Armies as I had originally mistaken.
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Date of Public Law 94-478
The reference given for PL 94-479 said that it was passed on 19 January 1976, but the source itself says it was enacted in October 1976. It is the date of enactment which counts, so I have changed it (to just say 1976, since the only date which really matters is the effective date of the promotion, which is 4 July 1976). Richard75 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I neglected to explain that January is when Congress passed the resolution, but the president signed it on 11 October. Richard75 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Major Edit 2015
I just finished incorporating all my research and notes over these past two years as well as the IOH material I received. I hope everyone likes the finished product. Looking forward to any expansions, improvements on what I've added. Thanks everyone! -O.R.Comms 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Image info in article
I removed this information from the image at the top of the article:
 * unofficial image, from SVG elements 2006-2015

That seems to me to be something that should be in the information about the image itself, not on the article about the rank which the image represents. The insignia depicted by the image was originally created in 2008 when the Army created the Army Service Uniform. I think the average reader would not understand the caption about SVG elements. Opinions? Thanks -O.R.Comms 22:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that part of the note should be removed, as no other SVG image in the article has a note about it.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Without the information, the image is misleading. Unlike other shoulder strap images, the existence of a proposed six-star insignia, and its official rejection, is the main point of the article, and we have not been shown what has been claimed to be the image published by IoH. It was not the image being shown here. It should be explained in one way or another that what we see here is a Wikipedia construct, not the IoH image as published. Qexigator (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen something like that done before. Indeed, in most situations like you are describing, the information about the Wikipedia construct is outlined in the image description page.  Putting the info in the reference note to the image (which you did - thank you) seems to be one solution. -O.R.Comms 01:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Modern day Washington uniform
We would never be able to put this in the article, since its clearly Original Research, but here is what Washington would look like if he were alive today. I must say, a very cool picture! -O.R.Comms 15:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)