Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 1

Notices
The article is not orphaned, but is linked to from both articles that currently describe six-star ranks. Links from the holders, proposed holder (Macarthur) and speculated holders (Washington) of these ranks might be appropriate, but they are already link to the articles on the specific ranks so it's not all that important.

The one reference, and the see also section, are quite sufficient references for the material in what is after all still a stub.

A refactor is probably a good idea, to give the article a more logical form, but neither notice is relevant any more, so I'm removing both. Andrewa (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What insignia did Pershing wear?
It's rumoured that Pershing never wore the four gold stars, but I can't find any citeable evidence. However http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1507340 reads in part

''Pershing, however, until 1919 a four-star general, was made "General of the Armies" in that year. He retired in 1924 but officially kept the rank until he died in 1948. That said, even during his five years of active service after he was awarded the rank, he never actually wore more than four stars.''

That might be the start of the rumour that he never wore the four gold stars. This was in effect a five-star logo. But it only had four stars, and it seems to me that we can assume he wore it in the absence of evidence either way.

The everything2 article goes on

''The sixth star, however, became implied in 1944, when Eisenhower, MacArthur, Bradley and Marshall were promoted. At the time, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson said explicitly that none of the new five-stars should be considered to outrank the still-living Pershing, and indeed that their rank was to be considered a separate grade from his. Ergo, the implicit sixth star.''

The important proviso here is that their rank was to be considered a separate grade from his. And if we can source that, then it shows that Pershing did actively serve in a six star rank. If we can source that analysis to a reliable secondary source, then it's encyclopedic. Otherwise it may be true but it's WP:OR. Still with me?

It's not enough that Pershing was senior, he was that by date of appointment even if he was only a five-star general. It's necessary to show that he wss senior by virtue of rank, and that this is acknowledged by some authority as showing that he was six star.

Lots going on... Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite plan in a nutshell
Here's the nutshell of the rewrite I have in mind. In looking at this I'd want to focus on getting the RS ducks lined up but feel free to fire away. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrases "Six star rank" and "Six star general" are a common slang that mean "having no equal". For example, a boxer can call himself "Joe 'Six Star General' Boxer" implying he has no equal. (example cite is available for the boxer and I need to locate one for the slang expression. Six star is not in my World Book Dictionary but I'll check an OED plus slang dictionaries next week)
 * The phrase can also be used in a derogatory fashion as an indication that a person is so full of themselves they believe they are a six star general. (need to locate a cite for both the definition and perhaps an example)
 * No armed force in history has ever awarded a "six star" grade nor has it ever been formalized. Some armed forces have positions that outrank a five star general or the five star Fleet Admiral but these always have their own name such as General of the Armies (US Army), Admiral of the Navy (U.S. Navy) or Wonsu (North Korea). These senior grades are not defined as "six star" grades and their insignia do not contain six stars. References to these positions as "six star ranks" are only in the slang sense in that they have no equal. (The main cite at the moment is the CMH which punted the six star issue back to Congress. This is a harder section to establish in an encyclopedic way as we are trying to show that an absence of evidence is also evidence of absence without OR unreliable sources. I'm also trying to be careful to use "grade" when referring to the actual titles. See PL 94-479 for why I used "grade" and how they use the word "rank.")


 * Not quite sure what your point is so far as rank versus grade goes. At best it might apply to some countries only, and as this article (and all the rank articles, not just the general officer ones) are international in scope, this seems a bad direction to me. Would we need to rename 5-star rank to five-star grade, for example?


 * This also seems to confuse rank with insignia. It's clear that Pershing served actively at five-star rank at least, and official that Washington... well, I struggle to understand the logic that didn't make the appointment of Washington to five-star rank in some respect retrospective, but it seems that while he didn't serve in a five-star rank, at least one of the two three-star ranks in which he did serve is equal in seniority to a five-star rank, or may even be superior. Anyway, neither wore five stars.


 * The position is clearer outside of the US, in fact it's only really a problem in the case of US officers, who unfortunately are the most interesting cases for other reasons. Field Marshal is a five star rank, but Australian Field Marshals don't wear a five-star insignia, nor does Australia have any plans to introduce one AFAIK. Andrewa (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Six star image
Copied from thread above.

The appears to be entirely an invention of, and conjecture by, a Wikipedia editor. It is not based on a source document. To challenge this effectively, or to prove that the image is accurate, we'll need to locate a RS that either describes the image clearly or shows a picture of it. In this case it's my opinion that the image is OR and I'm happy to leave it at that pending research into if that particular image is accurate or not. FWIW, it's interesting that the Center of Military History people never saw fit to include a six star image on their web site.


 * Interesting. The article that originally included the graphic gives its source as Macarthur's official service record... Are you challenging this? Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes on the challenge as a RS has never been located that describes or shows this image. It does not mean the image is wrong, just that it's unsourced. I believe this is the edit that introduced 6Star.jpg to the General of the Armies article. It's possible the file was around much earlier (maybe as an admin you can see the edit history for [[Image:6Star.jpg]]). iirc, the original image creator admitted he just made it up. There was a mild discussion and low grade edit war with the challenge being "you can't just make up an image" but people admitted it was also possible it was the correct image and it's been with us ever since. Text was later added to General of the Armies that appears to support the image but not in a convincing way. Think of it as adjusting the experiment to fit the results.


 * I believe these are the image files
 * [[Image:6Star.jpg]] (earliest version)
 * [[Image:6Star.PNG]] Introduced in May 2008 as a replacement for the .jpg
 * commons:File:6star.PNG moved to commons and was CsD 18 September 2008.
 * commons:File:6 Star.png reuploaded to change the name on 16 September 2008.
 * commons:File:US-O12 insignia.svg converted to svg and given new name.
 * So, at the moment the image is not particularly controversial but is also unsourced. It's possible the editor that added the stuff about MacArhur's package (I think it's User:Shaheenjim) can resolve this and so I've pinged him. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Shaheenjim replied back on my talk and is not the right editor. I'm out of WP time for now - there's no hurry on solving these mysteries. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

North Korea
The section on North Korea has been removed. It seems to me this really should have been discussed here first. Edit summary is Removed North Korea section as their wonsu is either a three star rank (one above) vice marshal or similar to the five star ROK wonsu.

A similar edit has been done to the Wonsu article. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I just looked at the wonsu history again. For some reason I thought one of the edits by 204.84.244.1 added the six star reference. The DPRK wonsu as a 6-star rank struck me as an extrodinary claim as it's above Chasu which is reported as being translated to Vice-Marshal (two star) and has more stars than the ROK wonsu. It's likely a five, and not six star rank. I restored wonsu and started to look into it. Crud, this is a nightmare - let me think out loud.


 * The North Korean Wonsu claims to be six-star and that a higher rank, dae wonsu exists.
 * The South Korean Wonsu five-star rank with no mention of dae wonsu.
 * South Korea's Military of South Korea puts Wonsu as five star and does not mention Dae Wonsu.
 * North Korea's Korean People's Army does not list ranks and refers people to Comparative military ranks of Korea.
 * Comparative military ranks of Korea has wonsu for both the north and south but does not mention insignia. South Korea does not have a higher rank while the north has dae wonsu which is equivalent to General of the Armies and reported as "no official insignia."
 * Dae Wonsu says "theoretically equivalent to a seven star General" and describes the insignia
 * I've added a section back for North Korea, changed it to use dae wonsu, and copyedited the lead again.


 * I'll let you decide if a you want to change this article back to using wonsu as "six star" but rank equivalent to the U.S. five star or dae wonsu which may have six stars, a crest, and is rank equivalent to general of the armies. Image searches for 大元帥 and 대원수 finds this which shows 대원수 (dae wonsu) as five large stars, a small sixth star, plus the crest. The same page also shows an image of wonsu with five stars.


 * I edited wonsu again to say it's equivalent to a five star general. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just ran the page with the dae wonsu image on it through babelfish and it says it's the organization of the South Korean national forces. Thus these may not apply to North Korea and it's interesting that dae wonsu was included. It's a nice image at http://cfs5.tistory.com/original/3/tistory/2008/04/21/00/37/480b633513286 but no clue on the source. I don't think North Korea has many web sites... --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say, it's difficult. It strikes me as amazing that people want to delete this article rather than improving it! Or maybe moving it to 6-star and higher ranks? A rumour that there was a North Korean ten-star rank was mentioned on some talk page recently I recall...!

OK, we need to be careful about WP:OR. But keep in mind what the OR restriction is there for... it's to keep us to material that is encyclopedic. This can be a bit tricky at times. We can't publish a new interpretation, such as this shows that Washington was not acting as a three-star officer at the time, no matter how convincing we find the evidence. But we can and should make the facts of the matter available and accessible, and if the evidence is that overwhelming, others will make the connection too.

But we also need to be careful not to be US-centric. The material on the web is inevitably biased in this direction. There are some important and essential features of the US military that aren't shared by all armies. The civilian control at the top, for example. This is rather different to the traditions of old Europe, where the King was the Commander-in-Chief. The uniforms and honorary ranks given to royalty reflect a past in which they were real soldiers at these levels of command, and not just in monarchies... Most of Napoleon's senior officers were aristocrats, despite the Reign of Terror.

Much is made of the North Korean ranks being "ceremonial". This is perhaps misleading. In much of the world, the difference between ceremonial and career ranks at the top levels is still not well defined at all. Are we confident that North Korea is not a case in point?

I'd be very surprised if, with time and effort, we can't come up with a good article on six-star ranks. But I don't have a lot of time for it right now, as I'm in another far trickier negotiation which is again in WP:DR. It's a shame from my point of view that the article was recreated before I was ready, as if it gets deleted a second time it will make WP:DRV that much harder. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a shower and had what I hope is an inspiration and the article lead got rewritten. My thinking is to not focus on the number of stars but rather the scope of responsibility with a six star being responsible for an entire armed force or armed forces. Something I'm still struggling with is the article title. In my mind the title itself is OR in that "six star rank" is not a recognized term. Meaning that while we can certainly find usages of the term I don't we can call them secondary, or even tertiary, sources for references. Other than the title I believe the article is close to AfD proof but then you probably thought the same before it got AfDed, deleted, and then CsDed. On the 10 star general - I believe someone said it was a Russian. I agree the article should not be U.S. centric. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I first created the article, as with probably every other article I've ever created, was that I had been looking for information in Wikipedia and didn't find it. However in this instance, a few weeks later I found it was in Wikipedia all the time, just poorly indexed; That's when the article was started. From the structure of the recreation, the newbie who recreated it may have been along much the same path.


 * But not recognised by whom? See official names. One of the most fascinating things about the topic is the reluctance of US officialdom to be explicit either way, but the man in the street knows exactly what the term means, even if they have no idea whether anyone has actually held the rank. We can't help a lot there, as the US military ain't saying either. (-> But we can report what they have said, and should.


 * One thing that is definitely OR: I suspect that army/navy rivalry comes into that. And here's a related snippet: Everyone seems to call Washington the founding commander of the US Army, but according to the Smithsonian exhibit on the History of the US Navy, its founder was Alfred the Great. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL on Alfred the Great. I was just reading Generalissimo and see that it has sections for the Dae Wonsu and General of the Armies though they missed Admiral Dewey. In that sense, this article looks like what 6 star rank would become unless we want to say 6-star is the "tween" that fits between the known 5 star rank and the Commander-in-chief/Generalissimo (aka, 7-star rank). Dae wonsu would be 7-star and wonsu is 5-star. Like most countries, Korea would not have a 6-star rank unless it can be shown that a North Korean wonsu ranks higher that the South Korean wonsu. Given only three officers for the north and zero for the south the odds are their wonsu rank scope of responsibilities are the same or very similar. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alfred the Great was just an example of how tricky it can be to get a canonical version of military history. Even the professionals seem to get excited from time to time, and their objectivity suffers. As for those who make military history a favourite hobby... watch out! And both professionals and amateurs publish what could be quoted as "reliable secondary sources". Go to any public library in Australia and you'll find books on military history from mainsteam publishers but authored by rank amateurs. Why? Because they look good, read well, sell well, and people borrow them from the library and vote for councils that give libraries money to buy them. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant-General as a "six star" rank
When Ulysses S. Grant was commissioned the Lieutenant-General in the armies of the United States is rank was defined as "elevation to a grade above all the rest" and "command of all the armies". The implication here is that a Lieutenant-General in 1964 held a rank that we would call a "six star" rank today. Should this be included in the article?

The following are quotes from The Life of Ulysses S. Grant - General of the Armies of the United States by Charles A. Dana, and J.H. Wilson. Published by Gurdon Bill & Co. and others in 1868..


 * p. 163 On the 1st of March, 1864, the bill reviving the grade of Lieutenant-General in the armies of the United States, became a law, by the approval of Mr. Lincoln. As has been shown, it had its origin in the desire expressed by far-seeing statesmen, to confer the actual control of military operations solely upon General Grant; and it received its warmest support from those who believed that nothing less than this measure would enable the Government to make successful head against the insurgent Southerners. Grant had so far been the most successful General, and it was believed that his elevation to a grade above all the rest, would give him a power for good, which he could not otherwise exert.


 * ... This confidence was not misplaced, for, on the next day, Mr. Lincoln sent to the Senate the nomination of Ulysses S. Grant, to be Lieutenant-General. The nomination was confirmed at once, and an order was sent directing Grant to repair to Washington for the purpose of receiving his commission.


 * p. 165 "You are now Washington's legitimate successor, and occupy a position of almost dangerous elevation; but if you can continue as heretofore, to be yourself, simple, honest and unpretending, you will enjoy through..." (quote is of General Sherman and itself is sourced to the publication Sherman and his Campaigns (1965) by Col. S.M. Bowman and Lt.Col. R.B. Irwin, p. 166.")


 * p. 166 "The next day, as had been expected, the President assigned the new Lieutenant-General to the command of all the armies, with his head-quarters in the field." (the date of this assignment is March 9, 1864).


 * ibid. "Here, on the 17th day of March, he issued his order assuming command of the armies of the United States, and announced that till further notice his. head-quarters would be with the Army of the Potomac."

--Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a "General of the Armies of the United States"
Note, while this publication's title seems to state that Grant's rank is General of the Armies of the United States that's not the case. It's saying that he was a "General" of "the Armies of the United States." For example, the body of the publication uses: --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * p. 166 "assuming command of the armies of the United States"
 * p. 170 footnote "Report of Lieutenant-General U. S. Grant, of the Armies of the United States, dated Head-quarters Armies of the United States, Washington, D. C., July 22, 1865.
 * * p. 267 "When Grant assumed command of the armies of the United States ..."

Time line for General of the Armies of the United States
This belongs on Talk:General of the Armies but is continued here to see if Generals Washington and Grant are "6 star". It's apparent the General of the Armies article will need to be revised.

The Military Laws of the United States, 1915 p. 141 mentions
 * May 28, 1798 Authority to appoint a Lieutenant-General conferred to the President.
 * March 3, 1799 - The grade of Lieutenant-General is abolished and replaced by General of the Armies of the United States.
 * March 16, 1802 - General of the Armies of the United States ceases to exist. The page lead says "Nothing in this provision shall affect the retired list." Presumably that's standard wording and that Washington's status is unaffected.
 * February 15, 1855 - The grade of Lieutenant-General is revived and conferred on Winfield Scott.
 * May 29, 1966 - Death of Winfield Scott results in discontinuation of the grade Lieutenant-General.
 * July 25, 1866 - General of the Armies of the United States is revived and was conferred on Lieutenant-General Grant.
 * July 28, 1866 - General of the Armies of the United States is recognized and continued.

To be continued - Google Book's site died. The last search was for "General of the Armies of the United States" 1917.

I may move this to a sandbox so that I can use references as the time line needs the following inserted --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * July 4, 1798 - Washington commissioned by President John Adams to be Lieutenant General and Commander-in-chief of the armies raised or to be raised for service in a prospective war with France.
 * July 13, 1798 - Start of Washington's service as Lieutenant General. He participated in the planning for a Provisional Army to meet any emergency that might arise, but did not take the field.
 * March 3, 1799 - The grade of Lieutenant-General is abolished and replaced by General of the Armies of the United States.
 * December 14, 1799 - Death of Washington and end of service as General of the Armies of the United States.

Reorder lead
I've reordered the existing text as a first step in doing some work on the lead. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Article still reads in part ''In some countries, officers have been awarded or promoted to a rank that is senior to the five-star rank and is a military rank of the highest degree. In many countries the six-star rank insignia does not have six stars. Thus, while an officer may be of six-star rank he may not be a "six star officer" on his countries' organization chart.'' This wording is now less prominent, but I question whether it adds anything at all. The first sentence seems to state the obvious, and it's not at all clear to me what the second and third sentences are trying to say. Andrewa (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (clarified Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

The relevance of the observation that In many countries the six-star rank insignia does not have six stars is particlarly puzzling, as the same is true of five star ranks. Surely there is no suggestion that the rank of field marshal in the British or Australian armies, or of Marshal of Poland, is less than a real five star rank? Yet none of these countries (two of them NATO members) use a five-star insignia. There are probably many other examples, but Wikipedia seems particularly poor in images of insignia of other militaries than the US. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Field_Marshal would probably yield some more examples of five-star ranks without five-star insignia, but with considerable research required. Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

US army six star insignia again
The image of the six-star insignia allegedly prepared for Macarthur has been removed again. I'm not about to start an edit war over it, but personally I find the image very interesting indeed, and feel that despite its imperfect provenance it's a good thing to have in the article. We basically define encyclopedic as what encyclopedias contain, and I don't believe that the editor of a general encyclopedia would reject this fascinating image, unless of course to push a particular barrow. Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources for it are on the General of the Armies article. An anon ip took it out as well; probably should just put it back. -OberRanks (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Actually, the source was already in this article as well, but I've made it a little more explicit. Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "Ranks above 5 star rank"
The evidence for 6 star rank is tenuous at best and this article is riddled with original research. However there are several examples of ranks which are senior to commonly accepted 5 star ranks. At start would be to rename this article to "Ranks above 5 star rank". Greenshed (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE: There's a strong body of opinion that no rank above five stars should be recognized, but as you say there are several examples of such ranks. The examples within the USA all have some ambiguity about them, but there are other examples outside of NATO. The common name for the generic next rank up from five star rank is six star rank.
 * So it seems to me that this is both a good topic and the right name for it.
 * It would be interesting to try starting a separate article on all ranks above five stars, and see where that leads. But I would expect it would just be to a merge, virtually deleting this article, which is of course exactly what some POVs want.
 * This has always been a problematical article. Agree it needs work. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE: "Six star rank" is a common term for marshals, field marshals, and the American "super ranks". Object to an unnecessary change to a more lengthy and bulky title.  Agree as well that the article needs work. -OberRanks (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Variations of English
I'd like to quietly object to the correction of my spelling above. In terms of WP:ENGVAR I think it's dubious at best. Andrewa (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed text
''In some countries, officers have been awarded or promoted to a rank that is senior to the five-star rank and is a military rank of the highest degree. In many countries the six-star rank insignia does not have six stars. Thus, while an officer may be of six-star rank he may not be a "six star officer" on his countries' organization chart.''

As pointed out above, that's meaningless. Many five-star officers don't wear five stars either. So it's possibly OR, but it's not even correct! Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Popular usage
Six star general is used in popular language to denote a supremely exalted rank, sometimes cynically to denote a fictitiously exalted rank.

The Junior Woodchucks do even better, with Huey, Dewey and Louie holding the rank of ten star general.

Not quite sure how to incorporate this into the article, or where to source it. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

France
The correspondence between French ranks and NATO codes is not all that obvious from my reading either of English or French Wikipedia, but it's just possible that the corresponding French officer wears one more star than their US counterpart. If so, just another example of insignia not being a good guide to comparative rank when the comparison extends across different national armies, even within NATO.

The English Wikipedia articles on French ranks need a great deal of work... compare Grades de l'armée française to Ranks in the French Army just for graphic content alone. The statement in the English article that several senior ranks are not genuine needs clarification... would we similarly say that ranks in the US military above Major general (United States) are not genuine? They appear to be similar in nature. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

US Insignia (theoretical)
US section currently reads Two ranks, Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies, are senior to the five star ranks but have not used a six star insignia.

This needs rephrasing, and I'm not quite sure how.

As it stands, the second clause is a misleading and probably meaningless statement. There seems little doubt that Admiral Dewey held a five star rank at least, but he never wore more than four stars, and unlike Washington he hasn't been posthumously promoted. He held a five-star rank for which the official insignia only had four stars. So even within the US military, just counting the stars on the insignia doesn't tell you what the rank is. There's no reason to expect that all six-star ranks would have six-star insignia, any more than a five-star rank always has five stars.

What is true and probably verifiable is that the US military has consistently refused to confirm (or to deny) that anyone has yet been awarded a six star rank. That's what the article should say, assuming it can be sourced, which I think is possible, in fact the other articles from which this material came probably already have suitable links.

In the case of Washington, you could even argue that nobody knows what his rank will eventually be, measured in stars; As soon as the US appoints a ten-star general, in terms of his posthumous promotion he will automatically be one too, with retrospectivity ensuring his seniority over the new appointment to that rank. No new promotion is necessary for this to occur. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now had a go. Andrewa (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub status and focus
It should be remembered that the focus of this particular article is six-star ranks. Any rank that is definitely seven star or higher (if such exists... it may not) should be described instead in the proposed article on higher ranks... in fact finding any such ranks would justify such an article.

Countries other than the US and North Korea have had ranks higher than five star. That's the main reason this is still a stub. And of course, more references are the most urgent need, particularly in view of the controversial nature of the subject. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A little more on existence
Discussion above on whether six star ranks exist pretty much ended with a reference to Quine's awesome paper On What There Is.

But I've since been musing on the (five star) Australian rank of Marshal of the RAAF, see Air force officer rank insignia and Ranks of the RAAF. As far as I know no serving officer has ever held this rank, nor is there any likelihood of it in the foreseeable future. So, does this rank also fail to exist? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you follow the link to Marshal of the RAAF you will see that it has been awarded twice, both times as an honorary rank. However, I am not aware of any person ever being awarded a literal 6 star rank. 87.112.141.187 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's summarised on 5 star rank. Viz:
 * Currently, HRH Prince Philip is the only holder of these Australian ranks.
 * Also, although the highest active New Zealand rank is 3 star, (there are no 4* New Zealand rank holders), Prince Philip holds 5* ranks in the New Zealand Armed Forces.
 * Only one Australian born officer (Thomas Blamey) has held an Australian 5 star rank (Field Marshal).
 * With the exception of Thomas Blamey and the Englishman William Birdwood, who both held the rank of Field Marshal, all other holders of Australian 5 star ranks have been ceremonial.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of that link and the content of that artice. It depends on what you mean by literal. My point is, the various attempts to argue that six-star ranks do not exist all seem to be based on a distinction that fails in this case (and many others, dependng on exactly what the attempted distiction is). If Marshal of the RAAF does exist, then so do many (perhaps all) of the six-star ranks listed in the article; If it doesn't exist, what's it doing in our articles, listed as though it does? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the point(s) you are trying to make.
 * "It depends on what you mean by literal."
 * a) To whom are you addressing "you"? To me? Or are you saying "It depends on what one means by literal."?
 * b) To what are you referring when you use the word "literal"?
 * "based on a distinction that fails in this case" - Sorry, I don't understand.
 * "dependng on exactly what the attempted distiction is" - That one I understand, and I agree!
 * Personally, I don't think the issue is whether or not they exist. I think the issue is whether or not they are 6 star ranks. And as you say, that would depend on what is the definition of "6 star rank".
 * "If it doesn't exist, what's it doing in our articles, listed as though it does?" - I'm not sure which "it" you are referring to, but as a general principle, I strongly agree that "If something doesn't exist, what's it doing in our articles, listed as though it does?". Strongly agree.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm not sure how anyone can assert that Marshal of the RAAF does not exist. HRH Prince Philip is, ceremonially, Marshal of a number of Air Forces, including the RAAF. I think I've missed something. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, but there have been attempts to show that six-star ranks don't exist because they are purely ceremonial, which seems to mean that (allegedly) nobody has ever held them as an operational matter. Personally I think that the distinction between operational and ceremonal ranks is not as clear worldwide as it may be in some armed forces. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New lead
Article currently reads:

''Six-star rank is an artificial term to collectively describe the ranks superior to five-star ranks. Its origin is based on the proposed, but never adopted, insignia for the U.S. rank of General of the Armies.''

Previous lead read:

Six-star rank holders hold a rank superior to five-star rank.

The current version is grammatically messy, inaccurate (Huey, Dewey and Louie are ten-star generals and could never, ever be described as six-star), unsourced (who says it's artificial?), POV (artificial again)...

I tried to rephrase, but I seem to just come up with the previous lead. What exactly was the problem with it? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair comments.
 * "What exactly was the problem with it?"
 * a) With the exception of the Americans (who, I understand, do not officially recognise it anyway), no-one is asserting with any reliable evidential support that any of these ranks actually are "six star ranks".
 * b) I agree that "Six-star rank is an artificial term" is POV. However, "Six-star rank holders hold a rank superior to five-star rank." is also POV, and also has no supporting references.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree that it's POV to say that six-star rank outranks five-star. Surely you're not saying that there might be a six-star rank that did not outrank five-star? That seems to be contrary to the whole concept of star ranks!


 * The claim is unsourced, true, but I note that there is no supporting source for the lead to 5-star rank either, nor do I think one is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Disagree that it's POV to say that six-star rank outranks five-star." - Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I have a different opinion.
 * "Surely you're not saying that there might be a six-star rank that did not outrank five-star?" - You are correct; I'm not saying that.
 * "That seems to be contrary to the whole concept of star ranks!" - I agree.
 * "The claim is ... " - Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I have a different opinion.
 * And I would conclude that bit by saying: Well, that was a completely pointless interchange, wasn't it?


 * Not at all. Hopefully, we won't be the only editors to read this, and it clarifies the issues a lot IMO.
 * I'm very glad you think so! ("Flattery is likely to help you get exactly what you want.") Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I can retrieve something useful out of it?
 * First: What is a 6* rank? We don't seem to have a definition, do we? We seem to have lots of opinions and points-of-view, but no definition.


 * I really don't think there's any issue here. A six-star rank is the rank immediately senior to five-star.
 * Hmmm. I'm not as sure about that as you are. I'll give that more thought. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangent
What is a 6* rank? We don't seem to have a definition, do we?
 * I really don't think there's any issue here. A six-star rank is the rank immediately senior to five-star.


 * I'm still not comfortable with that. Let's try a different angle:
 * To save typing, lets say X = "A six-star rank is the rank immediately senior to five-star."
 * Thinking out loud.


 * What is X?
 * It IS a sentence. It is NOT a question. I guess it's a statement. (Agree? Yes/No?)
 * A statement of fact? Well, given that there are no 6* ranks, it's NOT a statement of fact. (Agree? Yes/No?)
 * An assertion? I would say so. (Would you? Yes/No?)
 * An assertion of what? I would say "An assertion of a relationship." (Would you? Yes/No?)
 * So what?
 * Start again:


 * What is X?
 * I would say it's a definition.
 * "A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing. "
 * Do you think X is a definition? (Yes/No)
 * If so, I guess the next question is "Defined by whom?"? (Yes/No)
 * If not, what do you think X is?


 * Is this useful?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not terribly useful to Wikipedia IMO. This is the sort of speculative discussion that occupies much of second-year undergraduate logic, and we could spend hours on it. To what point? Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  (Long sharp intake of breath.) Ouch! A bit harsh, don't you think? Probably accurate, but I'm fairly confident you wouldn't use that sort of approach when executing a seduction ... 
 * Well, that unambiguously answers one of my questions!!
 * How about answers to the other questions?
 * "To what point?" - Is that rhetorical? (I thought the point was obvious. Perhaps not.) Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

 * Alternatively, we have a definition, but we don't know where it came from, we don't know what it's based on, and we don't really know what it means.
 * My opinion is that perhaps we should put some work into the definition. What do you think?


 * I think it would be WP:OR.
 * Oh! I didn't expect that response. On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, how can we come to any useful conclusion about something that has not been defined? Help please! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't big on definitions. We use common English. This is very postmodern and not always easy to get your head around, but it's an underlying principle of much of Wikipedia core policy, not just on article naming. To quote some cited authority's definition is good, more than one even better on controversial subjects, but we have articles on many things that cite no such definition(s) and for which such a citation probably doesn't exist. To wrangle over the exact definition is OR and inevitably leads to a POV. There's some valid use for it on talk pages, but no room for it in articles. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no supporting source for the lead to 5-star rank.
 * For some reason that I can't put into words at the moment, the 5* rank lead seems OK to me, but the 6* rank lead doesn't. Perhaps it's something to do with the fact that the 5* rank actually does exist and/or has existed, and there's plenty of evidence of this.


 * On the other hand, I personally don't know of any ranks that are designated as 6* ranks. Yes, I concede that that's my problem, not yours. But I would like to have at least one example to draw upon.


 * I've just re-read this talk page, (again), but I can't spot any evidence of any actual rank that was actually deemed/defined to be a 6* rank. Lots of conjecture, lots of extrapolation, lots of implication, lots of use of the words "would", "could", and "should". But no "is" or "was".
 * (Except for, in late February, the tongue-in-cheek: "Finally, we have a genuine six star general.")
 * If I missed it, please bring it to my attention.


 * I think you mean, has any armed force ever explicitly declared that a particular officer was "six star rank"? Not so far as I know. But either way, so what? Nor has the Australian army, for example, declared Major-General to be a "two star rank". So should we similarly say that, in the Australian Army, no two-star rank exists?
 * You are on shakey ground here! Here we have an Oz Lt Gen wearing 3* insignia. Here a pommy Maj Gen wearing 2* insignia. On what do you base your statement: Nor has the Australian army, for example, declared Major-General to be a "two star rank".? I think they have. I know that without much effort I can find a UK reference stating the equivalence. With effort I expect I (or you) can find an Oz reference. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the star system has been adopted in common English to compare the ranks of senior officers serving in any force, whether their particular regulations assign a number of stars to a particular rank or not, or similarly, whether their insignia has the corresponding number of stars, or a different number, or no stars at all. This comparison is hypothetical; It only takes on any practical meaning when combined formations of two different national forces work out their combined command structures.
 * "This comparison is hypothetical" - Either: I don't understand. Or: I do understand and I disagree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "It only takes on any practical meaning ... " - (Except for the word "only") Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By-the-way: That does NOT mean that I think it is not encyclopedic. Or that I oppose such an article. In fact it is precisely for the above reasons that I think such an article IS a very useful addition to wikipedia. Even if it concludes "there is no such thing as a 6-star-rank", that is a huge improvement on conjecture and OR!


 * Provided it's not just conjecture and/or OR itself, fine.
 * Yes, that was my implied intention. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I'd like to mention that I personally (and many others too) draw a distinction between n-star-ranks and ranks-with-n-stars-in-their-insignia. There are many, many, many n-star-ranks which have NO stars in their insignia at all - I think the Canadians are a good example of this. A different example is the Commonwealth.
 * Hence, I'd like to emphasise that when I'm talking about a 6* rank, I'm NOT talking about rank insignia.


 * Yes, the confusion between star ranks and their insignia is elementary and common, as evidenced by some previous comments and edits. And if all one knows or cares about is recent US practice, it's a natural assumption to make.


 * As another aside, I don't agree that "The reference to the boxer is out of place"
 * In my opinion, the article would benefit from a separate section that addresses the boxer, Huey, Dewey & Louie, and similar otherwise-unrelated-issues.


 * I can't remember whether they were ever six-star generals. Their rank as JW generals is mentioned in at least two stories, Ten Star Generals at the end of which they were promoted to that rank, I can't remember what their rank was at the start of the story but it was stated and was some number of stars, and the story in which they take on the Chikadees at bridge building, and again I can't remember what their rank was then but again it was stated. Anyway, it's entirely possible that their promotion jumped the six-star level.


 * Well, it's past bed-time (again). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sleep well. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where to go from here. We seem to be going in circles. For example, the confusion beween star ranks and star insignia seems to reappear above. I really thought we'd at least solved that issue! Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Not sure where to go from here." - No, neither am I. But if we want to avoid having the article PRODed again, we have to get somewhere.
 * "We seem to be going in circles." - Really? I hope not.
 * "For example, ... I really thought we'd at least solved that issue!" - So did I. I don't understand why you are saying otherwise. If you think that doing so would be useful to making progress, please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take the bait: What is it that you think we're trying to achieve? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't think that the edit in question achieved much positive, see below. At best and by your own admission it replaced one unsourced POV by another. In my opinion, there was no POV in the claim that six star rank outranks five star. But even if there were to be I'd say it was a lesser evil than the current lead. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Re insignia, see above Here we have an Oz Lt Gen wearing 3* insignia. Here a pommy Maj Gen wearing 2* insignia. I thought we'd agreed that this is irrelevant. That's one reason I think we're going in circles. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we had agreed that it is irrelevant to our main discussion.
 * By way of explanation, you had said "Nor has the Australian army, for example, declared Major-General to be a "two star rank"." I believe the Australian Army has declared Maj Gen to be a 2* rank, and I know the UK has. The pictures were mentioned by me in support of this statement - not anything to do with our main discussion.
 * So no, I don't think that is a contributing reason to why we both feel we're going in circles.
 * I respond to your other comments at another time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A logically invalid explanation I'm afraid. The pictures do not support the claim that Major General is a two star rank. It clearly is a two star rank, both in the UK, because as a NATO member the UK uses the NATO rank codes, and in Australia, because as a Commonwealth country and for many other historical reasons Australia uses ranks based on those of the UK. There's no declaration or other evidence necessary. But that's not the point. The point is, the pictures to which you refer are not evidence of this, any more than the insignia of the North Korean rank of Wonsu is evidence that it is a one-star rank. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing either new or useful in your reply that is not your POV. Also, you appear to be agreeing with me, (unless I have mis-understood you). So, except for the fact that your response is rude and insulting, I don't know what point or points you are addressing. Perhaps you'd like to have another go at a more useful reponse? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that way. I'm trying hard to comment on the content not the contributor, but finding it difficult. Yes, it appears to me that you misunderstood, and I don't understand how. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Though the conversation is becoming hard to follow, I gather that you may have arrived at an impasse? I'm willing to moderate or provide a third opinion if you like.  bahamut0013  words deeds 05:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do provide a third opinion, all contributions are welcome, and it would be particularly welcome in this case to have more editors involved.


 * But I hope we are not to the point of needing moderation and won't get there. Andrewa (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I completely agree with Andrewa on the last two paragraphs and endorse his statements. And I, too, would like to welcome you (and any others) to the "conversation". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New blood!
Well, at this point, the conversation is kind of hard to follow because of poor factoring of the conversation. Before I throw my two cents in, let me confirm with both parties: the main dispute seems to be the wording of the lead due to differing opinions about the validity of the 6-star rank applied, especially outside of the United States?  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I reply, What do you mean by "factoring"? (It's not a term I'm familiar with.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also before I start, let me state that I think a lot of the problem here is that we're not sure that we are both talking about the same thing. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, from my POV, whether it's inside or outside of the US is not an issue, and most certainly not THE issue.
 * It's my understanding that both Andrewa and I have no problem with the reality of 5* ranks.
 * It's also my understanding that both of us agree that there are some ranks that are higher than 5* ranks, and that both of us think that there needs to be a WP article where these ranks are summarised.
 * It's my understanding that both of us think that an article called "6* rank" is a good place to do that.
 * However, it's my understanding that we come to that point from different perspectives.
 * My perspective is that there's no such thing as a 6* rank, but as far as I know, there's no term to concisely categorise these "higher than 5* ranks", so I'm happy to use 6* rank as a generic term, acknowledging that it is an "artificial" and arbitrary term. From my POV, it's a very good alternative (maybe even a much better alternative) to any other I've seen. And although it is, in my opinion, not a "real" term, it is a good name to use. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The clearest example I have yet seen of a rank superior to six star is the fictitious ten-star general rank of Huey, Louie and Dewey, but I don't think this is worthy of an article. Seven star ranks are a little better attested, but again I don't think an article is justified. And in view of the fact that ranks superior to six star seem so thin on the ground, I don't even think an article on all ranks above five stars is justified. Maybe a section in this article. But nearly all the material on ranks superior to five star relates specifically to a six star rank.


 * As I said long ago, this article came from my searching for information on six star ranks that I knew was in Wikipedia, having seen it there before, and finding it very difficult to locate again. It was there, just hard to find. As long as this problem is addressed, I'm happy. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrewa has a different POV. It's probably better if he describes it! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose in a sense anyone has a POV, but I'm not trying to promote one here, and so it's irrelevant. The Wikipedia guidelines and policies at WP:AGF and WP:NPA are quite explicit on this particular point. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the issue I'm trying to address is the lead. The problem I think is that it currently expresses a POV that there's something intrinsically wrong with six star ranks. It's fine to report this POV, which is widespread, and I wsih someone would come up with some citeable sources so we could report it better. It's not fine to state it as a fact.


 * Pdfpdf has raised a number of arguments to counter this, none of which I really understand. The clearest seems to be that the previous lead was also POV. I think this is irrelevant; We don't want any POV. But the problem is, what to put in the lead? Pdfpdf regards the claim that a six star rank is superior to a five star rank as POV. This doesn't really leave much to say. But I'm at a loss as to how to argue against it.


 * Perhaps we could say a six star rank, where one exists, is superior to a five star rank? But surely this is stating the obvious? Do the words in bold really add anything at all?


 * See above for some replies to Pdfpdf's latest posts. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my POV: If there's no such thing as a 6* star rank, (and I have yet to see any evidence of one), then it can't possibly be superior to a 5* rank, because it doesn't exist.
 * Any mention of 7* ranks is just noise.
 * I don't understand why Andrewa thinks that the statement "a six star rank is superior to a five star rank" is a useful statement.
 * Similarly, "a six star rank, where one exists, is superior to a five star rank" just continues the fantasy. As there is NO case where a 6* rank exists, it is an irrelevant statement.
 * Personally, I think Andrewa is "barking up the wrong tree" - I see no benefit in talking about 6* ranks as though they existed. They don't.
 * However, there are ranks superior to 5* ranks, and other than this article, there is no generic article to summarise them. One alternative would be to rename this article to "ranks superior to 5* ranks", but when Hawkeye tried to "fly that kite", he got nowhere. (See above).
 * The only "way-ahead" I can see is to treat "6* rank" as a euphamism. I could change the lead to reflect that better than does the current lead, but I would like to have a better idea of what other people think before I initiated such a change. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue of whether this is an encyclopedic topic has been much discussed. The decision was, eventually, that it is. If you wish to reopen that debate with new arguments, then you have every right to do so. But the article is not about a euphamism, it's about a rank, or rather about a class of roughly equivalent ranks in different services. Andrewa (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The issue of whether this is an encyclopedic topic has been much discussed" - Agreed.
 * "The decision was, eventually, that it is." - Also agreed.
 * "If you wish to reopen that debate with new arguments ... " - I don't wish to reopen that debate at all. Period. (Either with or without new arguments.)
 * "it's about a rank" - No, I disagree.
 * "or rather about a class of roughly equivalent ranks in different services." - Yes, I agree. So what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

another breakpoint
I know it's not perfect, and it needs further refinement, but is this better?
 * "Six-star rank is a term used to collectively describe ... "

Pdfpdf (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's better, but I don't think it just needs refinement. It still has some serious problems. I note you disagree above that the article is about the rank, not the term. So, is the article at five-star rank also about a term rather than a rank? Or, is the article at Ford Fiesta about the term rather than about the motor vehicle? Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "It still has some serious problems." - And, in brief summary, what would they be?
 * As described above.
 * "I note you disagree above that the article is about the rank, not the term." - Too many negatives! So, you're saying I think: "The article is about the term, not the rank". (Yes/No?)
 * No.
 * Yes. As there is no such thing as a 6* rank, then, by attrition, it can only be about the term.
 * Still going in circles. This was resolved long ago.
 * "So, is the article at five-star rank also about a term rather than a rank?" - No. It's about both - they BOTH exist.
 * An article has a topic. Note the single number of the term topic.
 * ''"Or, is the article at Ford Fiesta about the term rather than about the motor vehicle? - No. It's about both - they BOTH exist.
 * No.
 * Yet again I will ask: "What's your point?" You seem to have a habit of not answering my questions. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How sad. I can not identify enough information in your response that I can use to provide myself with explanatory answers my questions.
 * I still have no idea what your point is. Simply, I don't understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You said:"It still has some serious problems." - In a brief summary, could you please list what those problems are? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying: "The article is about the term, not the rank". i.e. As there is no such thing as a 6* rank, then, by attrition, it can only be about the term.
 * You replied: "Still going in circles. This was resolved long ago."
 * I have no idea what that means, and what you are referring to. Please provide a more explicit and informative answer. Also, which is the "it" that was resolved? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it. What was resolved was that 6 star rank is an encyclopedic topic. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You appeared to ask something similar to: "Is the article at five-star rank about a term rather than a rank?"
 * I replied: "No. It's about both - they BOTH exist."
 * You responded: "An article has a topic. Note the single number of the term topic."
 * I don't understand your answer. You asked about "term" and "rank". I answered about "term" and "rank". You respond talking about "topic". What has "topic" got to do with "term" and/or "rank"? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic of the article can be either 6 star rank (as I believe) or the term 6 star rank (as the current lead states). The other topic might be dealt with in a section of the article, but any article has only one main topic. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that we are both referring to the same things when we use the words "term" and "rank". I say this because of the confusion I'm experiencing. I would expect that if we both had the same concepts in our minds, there would not be any confusion. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we're still going in circles.


 * As I said before, I'm not going to revert your lead. If you see no problem, just leave it there until another editor gets actively involved. I hope that they'll see my point of view, and correct what I see as a problem, but they may take yours. That's how Wikipedia works. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding issues and the prospect of another PROD
It seems to me that the article as it stands is far more likely to be PRODed again than it was before this edit, but there seems no consensus on this. Also I don't disagree with all of the edit in question; Removing the word might was a good idea IMO. And there have been some small but helpful edits   by several authors since then.

Of course any future deletion proposal should look at the history, and make a case against the least deletable version if that's not the current one, so perhaps it's not a problem. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)