Talk:General officer/Archive 1

Field Marshal
should not redirect as field marshal is difft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.226.81.5 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2003 (UTC)
 * whats the difference? Dietary Fiber 03:17, 3 April 2003 (UTC)

Chinese Army
Chinese Army has Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, General of the Army, and Field Marshal... Nazi Germany had same thing, except there were ranks above Field Marshal (such as the specialized rank given to Heinrich Himmler). ugen64 23:24, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

General of the Army and Colonel General
As a five-star rank, General of the Army is effectively restricted to the United States, where it hasn't been awarded since 1950; the last incumbent (of a grand total of five) died over twenty years ago. (It apparently exists on paper in Liberia, but I suspect any attempt to actually use it there would be ridiculed by the outside world.) The other ranks listed on the General of the Army page are either four-star positions, or don't actually translate as "General of the Army" (possible exception: Armeegeneral).

Colonel General is likewise restricted to armies descended from the Soviet army, where it appears to be a three-star rank, rather than ranking above plain general (as the table has it). The equivalent North Korean rank of Sangjang is sometimes translated as Colonel General, probably because of the former close ties between the Soviet Union and North Korea rather than as a literal rendering of the word itself.

Neither can justifiably be included among "the more common grades of general", which the table is described as listing. &mdash; Franey 12:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale. As for Colonel General, that has been ever present throughout history and is still used today.  True, most countries have it as an equivalent of a 3 star in other countries, but the countries which use it rate it above a regular General.  The two ranks you speak of are just a little bit too common, I feel, to purge from the table. -Husnock 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Russian general ranks (translated) are Major-General, Lieutenant-General, Colonel-General, and General of the Army: there is no rank of "regular General". The ranks are inherited from the Soviet era, so I guess they are the same in other CIS countries. Colonel General seems to be confined to the CIS, and it's in the wrong place in the table anyway. If you have examples of any other countries that use the rank, especially above plain General, please name them.


 * General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale: this is a bit vague. Who uses it in this way? Who considers it be "as high as you can go"? The only English-speaking countries I've found that have a rank of "General of the Army" are the U.S. and Liberia. Other countries (e.g. Russia, France, the DDR) do or did have ranks that could be translated as "General of the Army", but this seems to be their equivalent of the rank of plain, unadorned General, which they lack: "General of the Army" was originally used in this way in the U.S., too.


 * Based on the evidence, I simply do not accept your statement that General of the Army and Colonel General are common ranks &mdash; certainly not as ranks superior to plain General. If you know otherwise, please provide the facts. &mdash; Franey 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See my talk on Admiral. A non-partisan alphabet table of the many General ranks would seem to be the solution. -Husnock 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe time for disambig
What do people think of turning this into a disambig page? I count at least four different countries that are mentioned here with only the pic of a US general displayed. Separate articles for each countries version of General might be in order. -Husnock 09:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * At present, there is a separate disambiguation page for General, and this page links to separate articles for each country's version of General. So it looks like your requests have been met.  I'll note that I think it's useful to keep this article as it is, to serve as a generic description of General. - Shaheenjim 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Other General ranks
What is the deal with the section Other General ranks? It only contains one entry: Obergruppenführer. Should it be moved to the General equivalent ranks section? Or the See also section? And if not, why not? What distinguishes it from those other sections? - Shaheenjim 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonel General
The "Old European system" section of this article currently says that Colonel General is between Field Marshal and General (and that General is directly above Lieutenant General). Should it be changed to say that Colonel General is between General and Lieutenant General (and that General is directly below Field Marshal)? - Shaheenjim 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps it would say that in the German Empire, Colonel General is between Field Marshal and General. But in Russia, East Germany, and North Korea, Colonel General is between General of the Army and Lieutenant General. - Shaheenjim 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

General officer
This article has to combine the overlapping concepts of general officer and the single rank of general. I suggest that since the single rank of general is always a general officer, but the reverse is not true, perhaps this article should, maybe, be titled "General officer". Any comments welcome. Mesoso 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK no objections so i'll go ahead and move it Mesoso2 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Bold text'''


 * I propose that we move it back to "General" and have "General Officer" redirect to it. It's true that the single rank of General is a General Officer, but people usually don't refer to it as "General Officer."  On the other hand, people sometimes do refer to all General Officers as just Generals. - Shaheenjim 07:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People sometimes do refer to all General Officers as just Generals, but the single rank of general is always a general officer while the reverse is not true. I propose that we keep it as "general officer", but if most other editors wish to move it back to "general" than obviously we should do that. Mesoso2 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * General Officers are not always four star Generals. But General Officers are always Generals (in the generic sense of the word).  And 1-3 star General Officers are referred to as Generals more often than four star Generals are referred to as General Officers. - Shaheenjim 23:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

a part entiere ????
This is far too obscure a term to be appropriate for a general audience. Could someone who knows what it means please replace it with some suitable English words? Carina22 13:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Historically significant generals
User:Althena has suggested we have a list of "Historically significant generals", and I agree.

However s/he started it up on General Officer. In my POV, that's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. Here's some of them:
 * General Officer is about the rank, not a about the people who have held the rank.
 * There are literally thousands of "Historically significant generals" (maybe tens of thousands). To start such a list on this page would, at first, be a distraction. Then, subsequently, it would take over the page. Very soon, the page would no longer be about the rank.
 * Also, there are already a number of lists of significant generals. For example, the external link on the General Officer page to Generals of WWII].
 * etc.

I have the impression that sub-sets of this topic are already the life work of a large number of people.

Never-the-less, I like the idea, and will raise it on the military history discussion page (viz: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). If you're interested, you may want to put this page on your watchlist. But be warned, it is an extremely active discussion page with many postings per day. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pdfpdf's comment's about such a list being unmanagable and redundant. I'd also add that there'd need to be a reference for each and every general on the list being 'historically significant' to avoid original research problems. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a reader of this article (rather than someone interested in writing it) I did feel like it was missing such a topic. However, I think if you guys see value in at least mentioning actual historical generals, perhaps at the top there could be one of those links/explanations such as "This article concerns the rank. For information about historical generals, see .... (relevant article link here). Just an idea.

Or, perhaps among the most prominent links in a "See also" article listing section, there could be such a link. Althena (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur 100% with Nick. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the UK officer ranks template
Is this really a good idea? The world doesn't revolve around the U.K. The rank is in use in multiple services of multiple nations. -Joseph (Talk) 05:45, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
 * Plus the template is nigh on unreadable. Seems pointless. -Joseph (Talk) 05:52, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
 * Why is it pointless? Template:US enlisted ranks has been around since April and nobody has had a problem with it. james_anatidae 06:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. They should either all stay or all be removed. Given the existence of the US template, it's rather ironic that this one should face an accusation of being UK-centric. Indeed the world doesn't revolve around the UK, but neither does it revolve around the USA. And it's perfectly readable. -- Necrothesp 10:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Would be a valid argument if there were a US template, but there isn't, It's also titled "common", but it isn't.  Is there a way to make it more generic?   138.162.128.53 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that one. They should both not be included in generic ranks. -Joseph (Talk) 12:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Female General
How to call a female general in the US? In germany an female general is called Mrs. General (same rank as the mal general) an written General (w) (w for weiblich=female). Its the same in all mil. ranks in germany but not in functional names. 195.145.211.194 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question.
 * I interpret what you're asking as some combination of: "How do you address a female general?"; "Is the way you address a female different?"; "Does a female general have a different title from a male general", and possibly other questions as well. (Please clarify if / where I'm wrong.)
 * In the case where you'd call a male general (or any other officer for that matter) "Sir", you call a female "Ma'am" (i.e. Madam.)
 * Otherwise, there is no difference. (i.e. There's no distinction like the General (w) you're describing, and you certainly do not call them "Mrs. General".)
 * Does that answer your question? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some years ago in the Canadian Forces a female superior officer could be addressed as either sir or ma'am, and some of them had a preference for one or the other. —Michael Z. 2008-06-02 18:01 z 
 * In the US military, senior officers are called Sir or Ma'am. When they are addressed by rank, there is no "Mr" or "Mrs" attached -- just the rank. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Salaries
This site: usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/2008pay/bloffbasepay.htm US' salaries tells all the salaries of American militaries, including generals. This site tells that an US Army general can earn US$17,383 in a month.Agre22 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

What is a general?
I would think the primary meaning (in the military context) of "general" is a person who takes general command of an army, regardless of formal rank. I mention this because I just learned that Robert E. Lee, considered one of history's greatest generals, was not a general in rank. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a distinction between general staff and the generals' ranks. I think militaries might give the rank anyway irrespective of former education or experience (i.e. no Cadet School and military career). --Vuo (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But not really my question. When someone asks the question, "Who are the greatest generals in history?" they are asking who where the greatest people in leading armies in war, not who are the greatest who held the rank of general. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both meanings are accurate, I'd think. I seen no reason why the second can't be mentioned.ChillyMD (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and to further complicate the discussion, depending on context, Brig Gen, Maj Gen and Lt Gen can also be referred to as "generals" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's the issue of the distinction between the rank of General and the staff considered "general-level". That is to say, collectively a group of senior officers form a "staff of generals", where in practice all or nearly all are called Generals, but need not to be. This splitting of hairs is necessary to characterize positions like Chaplain General (not a military general), Engineer General, Medic General, etc. These do not require a degree in military science, but in a relevant science (theology, engineering, medicine). Nevertheless they involve leadership on a national scale. --vuo (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

the significance of the general officer in society
I see that the topic of a list of generals has been discussed, but perhaps some consideration should also be given to discussing briefly the significance of the general officer in society, i.e., the great social and often political power often wielded by these individuals. 75.181.29.50 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlow Herbert Curtice
For those who do not know I am the first of three grandsons of Harlow Curtice. My name is Robert Harlow Bishop and I was born in Ann Arbor which is not why I write. My grandfather died when I was very young and I never had a chance to get to know him. Sites like this and articles written in the Detroit Free Press and other books help me to get to know more about him. He died tragically and at too young an age.I appreciate all tha you have written. I have enough to know that what you wrote is factual. If there is anyone out there who knew him I would love to correspond with you. I wish they would make a movie about him. He kept AC Spark Plug profitable and producing new products,hiring workers during the depression. I think that is pretty incredible. Again for those who desire to correspond that knew him my email address is robmgbl@aol.com. Again Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.11 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Général
It has been suggested that Général be merged into this article.

These topics appear to be equal, such that the général article exists only due to its different French spelling. Is there a separate article for the Spanish term generál? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I believe it would be an improvement to merge the two, so that the General article tells the whole story, not just most of it. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree that "the général article exists only due to its different French spelling". As described at General officer, the French (and others) use a different system to the Anglo-Saxon-descendents. Never-the-less, I still think the merge is a good idea. (The question "Is there a separate article for the Spanish term generál?" is a red herring.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - général is just French for "general", and should therefore not be an article in English wikipedia. We can't have an article for every language. The French system of ranks does not constitute a different concept. There is no separate concept here in the word général. However the article général seems to be specific to ranks of France. It should be merged with whatever article is about French army ranks, not merged into this one. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Common-sense merge. Brazilian generals don't have any special attributes. Make it so... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Vietnam People's Army General.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh-army-OF-9.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sri Lanka-army-OF-9.svg

Capitalization
I'm not sure exactly what the hell is going on here, but all these recent moves may have screwed up some of the redirects. Some of the redirects now point to an article which is itself a redirect. For example, General is a redirect to General officer which is a redirect to General Officer. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the discussion below of a possible title move. I actually support moving the article "General officer" to simply "General", as this is the primary topic. (There is also an adjective "general"; but it doesn't refer to a very specific thing. For comparison, "initiative" can refer to several things, but there is an article "Initiative" which refers to a type of voter-related thing.) Wikipedia policy is that article titles should be concise; i strongly support such a policy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved per consensus. PeterSymonds (talk)  15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I thought this would be non-controversial, but evidently that was incorrect. According to WP:NC, the second word of a title should not be capitalized unless it is a proper noun. "General" is a proper noun; "Lieutenant General" is a proper noun; but "General officer" is not, as far as I know. If someone has references that would indicate otherwise, I'd be happy to revise my views. However, to the best of my knowledge, "General officer" is a description of a category of military ranks, not a rank in itself. --Russ (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The generic topic of moving (hundreds of) pages from "Xxxx Yyyy" to "Xxxx yyyy" has been discussed at talk:rear admiral and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history at great length. I see little point in repeating it here. I suggest interested parties read the very lengthy Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. -- Pdfpdf (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delay: This one move is part of a MUCH bigger topic. I suggest we wait until the bigger topic is resolved before discussing this move. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Neither is a proper noun: "the army has twelve generals, four of them lieutenant generals; a young lieutenant general walked in." It's only capitalized as part of a proper name ("Lieutenant General Bloggins"). If you need a reference, check any dictionary or style guide (e.g., the NOAD has the headword lieutenant general). —Michael Z. 2008-06-01 03:34 z 


 * At the risk of boring you, such statements have been made several times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. I see little point in repeating them here. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seen. Hard to just let stand a statement which is demonstrably factually incorrect. —Michael Z. 2008-06-01 15:25 z 


 * Could you be a little more explicit please? (i.e. There are 3 statements there; which one is / ones are "demonstrably factually incorrect", and how would you demonstrate it?) Pdfpdf (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither general nor lieutenant general is a proper noun. (And as you say, neither is general officer, so none of them is capitalized except as part of a title or at the beginning of a sentence.)  Reference at hand: New Oxford American Dictionary. —Michael Z. 2008-06-02 14:34 z 


 * I'm afraid you have lost me. Which statement is "demonstrably factually incorrect"? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This one: “"General" is a proper noun; "Lieutenant General" is a proper noun”. —Michael Z. 2008-06-02 15:43 z 


 * OK. (Now I understand you.) Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael, and thank him for pointing out my mistake. --Russ (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the same issue, basically, as was addressed some while ago at Talk:United States district court;


 * At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, "similar statements have been made several times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. I see little point in repeating them here." "Russ": Have you read that yet? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * although the name of a specific court (in that case) or a specific holder of a rank (in this case) is a proper noun, the name of the court system as a whole or the rank as a rank is not. You might note that, legally, the U.S. Congress treats the names of ranks as common nouns; see, e.g., the capitalization used in :
 * "Sec. 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty in general officer and flag officer grades.
 * (a) No appointment may be made in a grade above brigadier general in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps if that appointment would result in more than 50 percent of the general officers of that armed force on active duty being in grades above brigadier general. No appointment may be made in a grade above rear admiral (lower half) in the Navy if that appointment would result in more than 50 percent of the flag officers of the Navy on active duty being in grades above rear admiral (lower half)."
 * Of course, that's only one country, but it is a noteworthy example of officially accepted English usage. --Russ (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Being pedantic: "officially accepted English usage" - Actually, it's American usage, not English usage. And by whom is it "officially accepted"? - That's a rhetorical question with the intention of pointing out that its "official acceptance" bears little relationship to the debate. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the WikiProject Military history page has been dormant since November 2007. How long do you propose we wait for it to be "resolved"? --Russ (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the process is for this sort of thing, so I can't make a useful reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy on this sort of thing can be found at Dispute_resolution. Continue discussing the problem as long as the conversation is useful, then if you still haven't reached a resolution, there are other steps you can take.  Like arbitration.  Personally, I couldn't possibly care less whether or not we capitalize the O in officer, in the text or on the page title.  Let's just not repeat the whole argument again. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Let's just not repeat the whole argument again." - Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a joke? I ask since you say that, then you continue the repetition of the whole argument. - Shaheenjim (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Shaheenjim, I don't understand.
 * "Is that a joke?" - Is what a joke?
 * "I ask since you say that" - a) To which "you" is the statement addressed? b) What is the "that" to which you are referring?
 * "then you continue the repetition of the whole argument" - who continues the repetition of which whole argument?
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
Since there is no active discussion in WikiProject Military history on this topic, I would like to see if we can come to a consensus on this single article.


 * Again, I ask if you have read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68? This has already been done there. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read it, and that's what convinced me that Michael's point was correct. And I don't see why you feel the need to repeat your point over and over and over again, at the same time you complain about repetition.  --Russ (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my response would be: "I feel the need due to feeling frustration." Pdfpdf (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate your preference below. It is not necessary to restate arguments already offered above (but if you have a different perspective on the issue, please feel free to offer it).

Option 1

 * Move to General officer, and remove capitalization in the article text in accordance with Manual of Style (capital letters)


 * 1) Russ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the correct capitalization. In the past, people have made valid arguments for and against how articles about specific ranks of general officers should be capitalized, e.g. brigadier general, Major General, etc., but this is a different and simpler issue, I believe, because "general officer" is a descriptive term, like non-commissioned officer, which has no special capitalization requirements. —Kevin Myers 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, makes sense. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I support the proposed move. "General officer" is not a rank or title; therefore the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68 should not apply. Also note the flag officer article uses lower case for past year. Station1 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

 * Keep current title and text capitalization


 * 1) Delay: This one move is part of a MUCH bigger topic. I suggest we wait until the bigger topic is resolved before discussing this move. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Other options

 * Comment: The generic topic of moving (hundreds of) pages from "Xxxx Yyyy" to "Xxxx yyyy" has been discussed at talk:rear admiral and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history at great length. I see little point in repeating it here. I suggest interested parties read the very lengthy Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. -- Pdfpdf (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delay: This one move is part of a MUCH bigger topic. I suggest we wait until the bigger topic is resolved before discussing this move. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Officer Cadet and Flight Cadet
Query. Is either an officer cadet or a flight cadet a rank and if not should they be deleted from the table of comparative of military ranks? Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC). Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vietnam People's Army General.jpg