Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 2

Six star rank
IMO the version prior to my changes had a lot of repetition and unnecessary information:
 * The list of specific titles does nothing.
 * That the rank is held by extremely important people is a no-brainer. You don't need to say on the article about presidents that they are important.
 * To say "six-star rank" and to talk about generalissimo ranks in general, then to constantly refer back to the US rank IMO was not a good way to do it --- see next para.

WRT the intro (A six-star rank refers to a rank which in the United States would have used six stars on its insignia (namely "General of the Armies").): I think this was appropriate given that the article is about these generalissimo ranks in general and not specifically about a particular US rank. I can the potential criticism that "Generalissimo is not the same as Gen. of the Armies is not the same as ..." however then the article's existence could be questioned. (A way to remedy that is to refer to a group or a certain class of ranks, I guess.)

That said, I think "The purpose of ..." could have gone too far, and it probably was correct to delete that.

118.90.68.114 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I agree with some of what you say, and not with other bits. It's approaching midnight here - I'll address your comments tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply:
 * IMO the version prior to my changes had a lot of repetition and unnecessary information: - I don't agree. Everything that is there, is there for a reason. By removing bits of it, you are removing clarifications and explanations.
 * The list of specific titles does nothing. - The list was put there before all the subsections below were added. Note that Generalissimo is not mentioned below. So, it does not "do nothing", but perhaps it needs rewording, which I shall do have done.
 * That the rank is held by ...  - Where does it say that?
 * Regarding your second paragraph, I agree that (A way to remedy that is to refer to a group or a certain class of ranks, I guess.) - I guess I was hoping that is what it is doing!
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Historically, military officers holding these ranks lead an entire army or the entire armed forces of a country or group of countries. These ranks have also been used by heads of state. are the sentences I think are entirely redundant given the context (In a nutshell, "Six star rank is a very high rank. Six star rank is held by big-shots like army leaders or kings.") The facts strictly are correct but are not significant to the rank itself—to me, the sentence adds "colour" but no substance.
 * Even with what you said above about the intro, I still think the best way to begin is to state that the "six-star" metaphor comes from a specific rank (actually existing or not is irrelevant) of the US military. The fact that the article is called "Six star rank" rather than "General of the Armies" is sufficient to show that it is about some particular kind of rank rather than any specific one.
 * 118.90.7.40 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Refactor lead
Lead read ''Six-star rank is a term based on the proposed, but never adopted, insignia for the U.S. rank of General of the Armies. Like General of the Armies, a number of other armed forces have used or proposed ranks senior to five star rank. Such ranks include Generalissimo and others mentioned in the article. However, unlike General of the Armies, these ranks have never been associated with a six star insignia.''

There are a number of problems there. The basic one is that this article is about the rank, not the term. Another is the fixation on the insignia, which seems to be linked to the desire of some US authorities (both armed forces and historical) to deny that such ranks are real.

This POV (and its opposite of course) should be described but not assumed by the article. It does make the lead a bit tricky. The point about the insignia belongs in the lead, but not quite so prominently.

The grammar of the original is also clumsy, and arguably faulty... Like General of the armies should lead into a sentence in which the subject is a rank, not an armed force. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the actual diff. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not specific and related tags
Article currently reads

'' The Institute of Heraldry produced a single sketch of how the insignia for a six star rank would appear, which was later filed into Douglas MacArthur's service record. ''

I'm not going to remove these tags, just flag here that IMO they are ridiculous, and just serve to highlight the poor standard of research and objectivity that prevails among some amateur enthusiasts of US military history. I hope and believe that this is no personal attack but an appropriate comment on the content above, which is IMO unfortunate but I'm not going to risk an edit war by removing it. I have had long discussions on this issue, see the archives of this page.

And that's just my opinion. Alternatively, if these tags are to remain, then perhaps someone would post similar tags at General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy (United States). These currently read

'' The Institute of Heraldry produced a single sketch of how the insignia for six star rank would appear, which was later filed into Douglas MacArthur's service record. The proposal for MacArthur's promotion was dropped by the United States Army on 18 August 1945, four days after Japan's surrender announcement rendered the planned invasion moot. MacArthur's service record indicates the promotion package was closed due to "lack of necessity for such a rank". ''

and

'' During the preparations for the invasion of Japan, a proposal was raised by the Navy Department to appoint Chester Nimitz to the rank of Admiral of the Navy, or grant him some equivalent rank. The proposal, however, was dropped after the Japanese surrender, and the United States Navy has never officially appointed anyone to the rank of six star admiral. Even so, Admiral of the Navy is considered by some to be senior to the U.S. rank of Fleet Admiral and the equivalent of the U.S. Army's rank of General of the Armies. ''

respectively.

In my opinion, the citations in both these other articles represent good-faith edits and good scholarship, and can all be verified by their critics with no more work than was involved in preparing them in the first place. Perhaps I am being naive here, but the agenda of the perpetrator of these hoaxes (if that is what they are) is far from obvious.

And I hope I am not again straying into personal attack by raising the prospect that these citations are hoaxes, but quite frankly that accusation is what these tags amount to, and that unsubstantiated claim and breach of WP:AGF is what I find so unfortunate. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PS If of course the implicit claim that these citations are in fact hoaxes can be in any way substantiated, that's a different kettle of fish. But at the risk of arguing from silence, no such evidence has been presented so far in many, many lines of discussion! Again, see the talk page archives.

I'd also make the point that it can be a good-faith edit and still also be a hoax. If a hoax from another source is repeated here in good faith, it remains a hoax. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted heads-ups to this discussion at Talk:General of the Armies and Talk:Admiral of the Navy (United States). Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Source of the term
Article currently reads The term six star is based on the proposed, but never adopted, insignia for the U.S. rank of General of the Armies. This was the text before my recent refactor, and I don't propose for the moment to change or even tag it.

But it might be a candidate. There's no citation, and I'm guessing it's US-centric speculation. IMO the term is far more likely to be based on extrapolation from other star ranks, a terminology which certainly originated in the US military but now has far wider usage. Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

George Dewey
Military rank currently reads in part:

the US Navy's Six-Star equivalent, awarded to Admiral George Dewey and subsequently removed after his death. (my emphasis)

This is unsourced (and not flagged as such); Does anyone know the details? Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A factoid re insignia


General of the Army (United States) currently contains the graphic and caption at right. It seems to indicate that, although he was certainly regarded as a four star officer, and unlike Grant and Sherman before him, Philip Sheridan never actually wore a four star insignia.

Just another factoid, and a new one to me, showing how ridiculous it is to confuse insignia with rank. The number of stars indicates seniority of rank at some times in some militaries, and not at and in others. Even within the US army, the relationship hasn't been consistent.

Still, the article currently reads in part ''The United States Military has never explicitly endorsed a six star rank. Two ranks, Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies, have been held and are senior to the five star ranks, but have never used a six star insignia. In both cases the insignia have included four stars.''

Well, yes, like the insignia worn by Grant and, until 1872, by Sherman, both as four star officers. And unlike that worn by Sherman from 1872, and by Sheridan, who both wore two stars as four star officers. And by Dewey, who wore four stars while serving as Admiral of the Navy, a rank that was in 1944 explicitly stated to be senior to the new five star rank of Fleet Admiral.

Was Dewey's rank a six star rank (in which case why not say so)? Or can a four star admiral outrank a five star admiral in the military that invented the "star" classification system (in which case it's pretty obvious why they might not want to say so)? Or was Dewey's rank a five star rank, but his outranking of other five star admirals was still because of his rank not just personal seniority, as explicitly stated by the US Navy in 1944 (even less logical)?

The pattern is, there is no pattern. The passionate assumption that there is pattern is just likely to confuse readers, is inherently original research and poor research at that, and obscures some very interesting facts.

That The United States Military has never explicitly endorsed a six star rank is a very interesting fact. That Two ranks, Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies, have been held and are senior to the five star ranks is even more interesting in that context. That they have never used a six star insignia is true but quite simply irrelevant, and confusing to the reader, who may not be aware of the two star insignia of General of the Army, or the four star insignia of General of the Army and of Admiral of the Navy.

It seems likely, in the light of the relentless pursuit of this phantom connection, that there are even some US authorities who confuse insignia with rank. If this is true and we can source it adequately, that fact would also be an interesting one to include in the article. Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Field Marshals and 5 stars
The lead currently states that field marshals never use 5 star insignia. However, British field marshals use (or used) 5 stars on their staff car star plates. See http://www.hampshireflag.co.uk/world-flags/flags/vxt-dv-r.html Greenshed (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't quite say that. It says "no insignia of the five star rank of Field Marshal ... includes five stars". Do you class "staff car star plates" as rank insignia? (I don't, but I don't pretend to be an expert on "staff car star plates".) I wonder if, perhaps, we are both being over-pedantic? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it is open to debate whether staff car star plates are rank insignia but irrespective of whether they are or are not the current final paragraph is misleading. The paragraph in question currently reads:


 * "Unlike General of the Armies, other actual or possible six-star ranks (including these U.S. ranks) have never been associated with a six star insignia. This is a similar situation to many other ranks. For example, no insignia of the five star rank of Field Marshal, used in many countries including some NATO members, includes five stars.".


 * Essentially the terms one star to five star are well established in most if not all national varieties of English (even if they did originate in US English). The term "six star" is not  well established and the above paragraph attempts to gloss over this distinction.  More generally, the problem with this article is that is largely consists of information either not about six star rank or original research about six star rank (such as the paragraph under discussion). My own view is that this page should to redirect to either Military rank or a new article called something like Highest military ranks or ranks above 5 star rank where information about the high ranks discussed on this page can be presented free from the strait jacket of describing everything in terms of the little used 6 star rank terminology. Greenshed (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that ideally the lead wouldn't even mention the insignia. But whenever I've tried that approach, somebody puts it back, and whenever they do they phrase it to imply that unless you have five stars on your shoulder boards you're not really a five star officer, etc.. Happy to have another go, just so long as others are happy to join me in watching for such, and I predict that after a while you'll get sick of removing it and instead just update it to be as accurate as possible. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename from 6 star rank?

 * I think I largely agree.
 * "Essentially the terms one star to five star are well established ... " - Agree.
 * "The term "six star" is not well established" - Agree.
 * "the above paragraph attempts to gloss over this distinction." - Maybe.
 * "More generally, ... " - Errrr. Yes & no.
 * As you say, "The term "six star" is not well established". This is both a strength and a weakness. A strength because its ill-definition allows it to be arbitrarily redefined for convenience. A weakness because its ill-definition means there is no widely accepted definition, and any redefinition is arbitrary. And it is "convenient" because it adds neatly onto the end of the sequence of 1 to 5 star.
 * You could look at this a number of ways. One would be to say: "There are a number of ranks higher than 5 star. For convenience, let's call them 6 star". Conversely, one could say: "They are not 6 star ranks, so why call them 6 star ranks?"
 * Hmm. I think I'm starting to develop the basis of a pretty good argument against calling them 6 star ranks! (Not my original intention, but "c'est la vie" ... )
 * "My own view ... " - You make several points
 * "this page should to redirect to either Military rank" - FWIW, my POV is "I don't particularly like that idea."
 * "or a new article called something like Highest military ranks or ranks above 5 star rank" - That sounds reasonable to me.
 * "where information about the high ranks discussed on this page can be presented free from the strait jacket of describing everything in terms of the little used 6 star rank terminology." - That sounds reasonable to me.
 * The only negative I can think of is that it doesn't fit quite as neatly at the end of the 1 to 5 star sequence, but I'd hardly call that a "show stopper".
 * Yes, from my POV, your second suggestion sounds like an improvement that addresses a number of the problems with using "6 star". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: I re-read the archives. I'll refrain from commenting on them, but I'll note this topic has been discussed before, at great length, without any satisfactory conclusion being reached. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The main negative is simply that it makes it more difficult for people looking for information on six star ranks to find it.


 * The only valid argument against calling them 6 star ranks is if someone wishes to claim that there's another more common term for the topic.


 * The other main issue is the scope and focus of the article. If we change it to supreme ranks or something like it then of course the name changes too, but are six star ranks intrinsically supreme? That seems contrary to the information we have; There seems no reason that MacArthur couldn't be posthumously promote to six stars, but in that scenario Washington would still outrank him as I understand it. This speculation doesn't belong in the article of course (unless we can source it to someone more expert than I!) I use it here just to explore the issue.


 * Disagree that the term is not well established. Evidence? It's true that it's not as widely used as five star, just as unicorn isn't as widely used as horse. So? They're different topics.


 * Disagree that You could look at this a number of ways. One would be to say: "There are a number of ranks higher than 5 star. For convenience, let's call them 6 star". No, that's not an encyclopedic approach at all! Six star has a meaning already and we must not ignore or try to change it.


 * There's lots of scope for improving and expanding this article, but the sources we need are not online AFAIK. In the fullness of time hopefully someone will track them down, and there will be plenty of material for several related articles; Meantime, we just need to present what we have as best we can. And there's already a great deal of interesting stuff there I think you'll agree, even if it prompts far more questions than it answers. The insignia of the North Korean ranks for example.


 * If a split, merge, or rename of the existing material can be accomplished without losing either content or ease of finding that content, then have a go but I'm very skeptical it's possible.


 * I initiated the article after looking for the six star insignia. I had seen it and its provenance in Wikipedia but couldn't remember where or even in connection with whom. I failed to find it, partly because of POV edits by people who wish to deny that it ever existed for reasons I don't really understand. Search doesn't search the article history of course! When I stumbled upon it a few months later, I thought, I'm surely not the only one to ever look for this, let's make it findable.


 * So I hope we don't ever go back to that scenario! We have tried many suggestions; Disagree that it's without any satisfactory conclusion being reached.


 * It's true that we haven't pleased everyone. And probably never will. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are bits of your reply based on assumptions that I don't understand. Could you clarify them please?
 * 1) The main one is: "They are not 6 star ranks, so why call them 6 star ranks?"
 * 2) Others include: "What is a 6 star rank?"
 * 3) You ask: "are six star ranks intrinsically supreme?" - Well, that would depend upon "What is a 6 star rank?" You quote one example, and that example is of the only rank on the page that could unambiguously be classed as a six star rank. As the other ranks on the page are not six star ranks, maybe they should not be on this page? I don't know what the best solution is, but I'm willing to discuss the merits of the alternatives. Personally, I would prefer them all to be on the one page, but maybe that creates a situation that can never be satisfied on a page named 6 star rank? As I said, I don't know.
 * 4) You say: "Disagree that the term is not well established. Evidence?" - It is impossible to find evidence of something that does not exist. On the other hand, as you are asserting that it is established, then presumably there is evidence of this. However, you also say (and I agree) "the sources we need are not online AFAIK." This makes it difficult to have any sort of sensible conversation about this particular point. It seems that the only alternative is to acknowledge that there are different points of view on this point, and until we have identified some relevant sources (on-line or not), we will all have to agree to disagree. (Unless, of course, you do have some relevant sources, in which case, please quote them.)
 * 5) You say: "I initiated the article ... " - Sadly, the accompanying insignia image fell foul of the image copyright police. Have you any ideas on how we might get an image that won't fall foul of the image copyright police?
 * Oops. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) You say: "When I stumbled upon it a few months later, I thought, I'm surely not the only one to ever look for this, let's make it findable." - Yes indeed. And in my POV, that's why an entry for "6 star rank" should be kept - even if it's only as a redirect to another page where it is mentioned. (Which, by-the-way, in NOT something I'm proposing or wanting.)
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that 6 star rank redirect to General of the Armies as it can be verified that General of the Armies is a 6 star rank. The General of the Armies article would then need a hat note that states something like "6 star rank redirects here. For other broadly equivalent ranks see Supreme military ranks."  The current content in the 6 start rank article would be largely moved to Supreme military ranks.  I could be pursuaded that a different article name to Supreme military ranks might be used but crucially what ever we go for should be a description of the highest ranks and not purport to be the name of a rank as it is original research to create a classification scheme for these highest ranks purely inside the Wikipedia.  Greenshed (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. Six star rank is a perfectly good topic in its own right, and material related to other ranks superior to five star is relevant to that topic, though admittedly less so than the explicitly six star rank proposed for MacArthur. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question/observation: The Korean examples don't seem to fit well into an article with the title "Supreme military ranks". Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Not sure what you want clarified... What's the source of the quote you give there?
 * It's a question. (OK, I'll take off the quote marks:) They are not 6 star ranks, so why call them 6 star ranks? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See (3) below, as you seem to have conceded the antecedent there, and (2) below for an answer assuming a false antecedent. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (2) As (1).
 * Ditto. What is a 6 star rank? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been one proposal for a rank that was explicitly six star, and the article should say that and when last I checked it did. We also need to carefully avoid saying that this is the only six star rank unless we have a source for that claim, and one would be great, see (3) below and cross that bridge when we do. There are other ranks that do seem to be equivalent, and similarly we should not say either way whether they are or not unless we have sources. But it's not obvious to me where else we should list these if we don't do it here, remembering that our purpose is not just to capture this information but also to make it findable. We need to be careful not to give undue weight to these other ranks, but I think that's more a matter of the article lead and phrasing than simply removing or relocating content. Agree it's a bit tricky. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (3) Mostly agree, but do you have a source for the assertion that the other ranks on the page are not six star ranks? That's a leading question here, and a source would be a very valuable addition to the page.
 * I have dozens of sources that do not mention "6 star rank" when discussing these terms. Yes, I agree that a source that stated "These are not 6 star ranks" would be useful, but we'll never find one, just like we'll never find a source that says "These are not carrots". It is true that these ranks are not carrots, but why would anybody explicitly say so? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But you claimed above that the other ranks on the page are not six star ranks, and now I think you're saying instead that on this particular issue there's a lack of evidence either way. This is a perhaps subtle but very important change in the argument, so before we go further, is that understood and agreed? Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (4) A very common misconception, and understandably as it's a very tricky issue, and one that has arisen in previous discussions. See unicorn and On What There Is.
 * Will reply later. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (5) I wasn't aware of these copyright problems, but they seem resolved. As with many aspects of Wikipedia, it's strange to me how a person can spend hours raising an issue that would have taken them minutes to correct in the first place, and it often happens, and I'd suspect this is a case in point, as US Government copyrights are not normally a problem. If I had forty lifetimes I might spend one as a psychologist; One of my research interests would be people who are "successful" and rapidly promoted in an organisation that would have been far better off without them, this comes from my career in corporate Australia of course but Wikipedia might well get a mention! (And some might even hold me to be a case in point in both areas (-> sauce for the goose.)
 * a) "but they seem resolved" - Yes. (I'd missed that.) b) "it's strange to me" - And to me, too. c) "If I had 40 lifetimes" - Interesting fantasy! (And I like your choice of research topic.) d) Agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (6) Agree. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is vital
All the previously removed material without references has been restored. The core policy here is Verifiability. In line with the policy I have challenged all the stuff about all the ranks other than General of the Armies as wrong. There have literally been years in which editors have been asking for references to reliable sources but none have been forthcoming. Note that (from the Verifiability policy) the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (the policy's emphasis not mine). No such evidence has been provided and so I am removing the material. If some of all of the material can be supported by references to reliable sources then I will happly let that material stand. Until that happens I intend to keep deleting any attempts to insert unverfied material to this article within the constraints of the WP:3RR. Greenshed (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although references have been added these are not the references that I (and others) have been asking for. As far as I can check (i.e. the on-line references), the references simply provide information about the specific ranks but do not state that they are six star ranks.  No one is disputing (as far as I know) that, for example, First Marshal of the Empire was a rank, just that it is not a six star rank.  If references to reliabile sources stating that each of the ranks in question are six star ranks (which I very seriously doubt have ever been classified as six star ranks) then I would have no objections to them being mentioned in this article.  Until then in the interests of verifiability I feel compelled to remove them.  Greenshed (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenshed, I think you're taking the point too far. A "six-star rank", as stated in the introduction "is a rank superior to five-star rank".  There's no need to establish that they were ever called "six star", nor would you expect foreign ranks to be so named. Any discussion of six-star rank would need to cover the ground that you've removed.  On careful consideration, I've reverted you, and would ask that you consider the point that this article is about ranks senior to five star.  If you can think of a better name for the article ...


 * I don't want to make a big deal about this, but I would suggest that any further discussion should be advertised at WP:MilHist. Shem (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to move the article title to ranks senior to five star then I would drop this even though that would be a clunky title. I urge all those who disagree with me to carefully read Verifiability if they have not done so already - just because some wikipedians believe that the ranks in question are six star ranks does not mean they can be included here as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.


 * The foundational policy on verifiability is very clear and there is every need to challenge this article which is effectively for the most part a Wikipedia neologism. This article is in contravention of the verifiability policy as it stands.  I am happy to discuss here but see no need to start lengthy discussions on WP:MilHist but of course Shem or any other editor can do that they want to.  For those who think I am wrong, I throw down the gauntlet to them to simply provide relaible sources which state that all (or any) of the other ranks here, apart from General of the Armies, have ever been classifed as a six star rank.   Greenshed (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The references provided do that. THEY SHOW THAT THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO FIVE-STAR RANKS, AND EQUIVALENT TO THE USA SIX-STAR RANKS.  THEREFORE, THEY ARE SIX-STAR RANKS THEMSELVES. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There should also be a page for Seven-star rank, for extremely high ranks which are superior even to six-star ranks (i.e. Nazi Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and North Korean Dae Wonsu). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoop, just pause a moment, read Highest military ranks and understand that this problem has already been solved. No need to edit war!  Your point is made and accepted.  Thanks for all the referencing.  Shem (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. De nada. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Matter of fact, as this article is mostly just an inferior copy of parts of that article, shouldn't we just merge what remains of this article into that article? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear "Whoop", I must add my thanks to Shem's re the referencing; it has made a significant improvement. Good work! I do, however, have more than a few problems with some of your statements above, and feel the need to comment. As there is not, nor has there ever been, a six-star rank in any country, then nothing can be equivalent to it. Yes, there are ranks superior to five-star ranks, but there is no evidence that any of them are six-star ranks - they are simply superior to five-star ranks. In fact, if you were to limit them to being six-star ranks, then they would no longer be the highest ranks - they would just be six-star ranks, and hence inferior to any seven, eight, nine, ten, etc. star ranks. You say: "as this article is mostly just an inferior copy of parts of that article". Actually, I disagree. This article (six-star rank) is about a proposed US rank that never happenned. That article (Highest military ranks) is about a number of ranks that do exist and/or have existed. Any overlap is incidental, not fundamental. "shouldn't we just merge what remains of this article into that article?" - No. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that we did not agree on six star rank question above, I would also like to thank "Whoop" for the referencing work which is now adding value to the Highest military ranks article. Greenshed (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonspecific tag
Some excellent work here and at Highest military ranks, and while I personally think it made a much better encyclopedia to have a lot more material remaining in this article (it was both more logical and more interesting, for a start), splitting seems to be a good compromise. The material is still accessible, if a little harder to find than before.

But I'm a little puzzled at the tag currently  on the reference to Macarthur's service record. Is there some problem finding this agency, or in accessing this particular record? What? And in either of these cases, it seems most unlikely that this tag is the best solution to the problem.

WP:Verifiability is a policy not a mantra. At least it should be. If there's no verifiabilty problem, surely it would improve the encyclopedia to remove this tag? Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Highest military ranks
I think this is the only place left to go, so I went there. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pdfpdf. Shem (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also add my thanks to PdfPdf. Greenshed (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger
Since all of the material on this page deals with the rank of General of the Armies, I propose merging this article into that one.108.201.221.204 (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger: As Admiral of the Navy (United States) might also be considered a 6-star rank, I think this is a bad idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support merger: This topic isn't worth a stand alone article. It's about a never-has-been detail of United States Army officer rank, status, honorifics and insignia. It would be better merged with General of the Armies, which has the merit of being about a small number of persons eminent in US military history, each with his wikibio. Let six star admirals join up with the admirals. Regardless of archive content, or the presently tagged version of the article as an interim, the ordinary general reader wants to see factual information properly presented, aided by redirects and "See also"s. Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the first person to provide a sensible response. Thank you.
 * However, for almost the same reasons you quote, I disagree that there should be a merge. I would VERY much appreciate your response to what I'm about to write.
 * You say: This topic isn't worth a stand alone article., but you don't explain why you think this, and you don't point out that this is your opinion. You state it as if it were a fact - it isn't a fact, it's your opinion. (If it is a fact, please provide some supporting evidence.)
 * You say: It's about a never-has-been detail of United States Army officer rank, status, honorifics and insignia. I agree. From my POV, that is EXACTLY the point. A very large number of people and sources have made statements about 6-star rank as though it is something that exists. It doesn't. And that's why an article to explain the history of the myth is essential. (In my opinion.)
 * Conversely, "General of the Armies" is something that not only DOES exist, but it is very well-defined, and has a wealth of reliable sources explaining its history, origins, validity, etc.
 * I think it would be a BIG mistake to shove 6-star rank somewhere in there - it would give 6-star rank some sort of association with GAS, and thus some sort of "validity" that it does NOT deserve.
 * Let six star admirals join up with the admirals. is neither helpful nor useful. Again, it implies that there is some sort of validity to the concept of 6-star admirals. There isn't, and there never has been. No, that's not a contradiction to what I've said elsewhere: Yes, there have been statements about (non-existent) 6-star admirals; if you make the mistake of shoving 6-star rank somewhere into GAS, then you ALSO have to make the mistake of shoving 6-star rank somewhere into AN.
 * Regardless of archive content - Really? Three years of lengthy discussion by knowledgeable wikipedians, and the consensuses they achieved should simply be disregarded? I find it hard to believe you are that cavalier.
 *  the ordinary general reader wants to see factual information - I disagree that the general reader ONLY wants to see factual information, PARTICULARLY in cases like this where there is VERY LITTLE (if any) factual information, but an awful lot of what we wikipedians call WP:OR.
 * For example, let's take the case of this newspaper article:
 * George Washington Wins Promotion to Six-Star Rank, Eugene Register-Guard, October 12, 1976
 * This article contains a number of inaccuracies, not the least of which is that Washington was NOT promoted to "Six-Star Rank".
 * If there is no article about 6-star rank saying things like,
 * the term six-star rank has never been explicitly established by any nation,
 * The United States military has never explicitly endorsed a six-star rank.
 * then fantasies and inaccurate statements about 6-star rank will persist.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The version you've reverted from didn't say that it is a rank, nor that Washington was promoted to it. So objections on that basis are incomprehensible. I have added your suggested addition. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pdfpdf: I consider it mistaken to believe (per your comment) it would be a BIG mistake to shove 6-star rank somewhere in there - it would give 6-star rank some sort of association with GAS, and thus some sort of "validity" that it does NOT deserve. I don't happen to think that we should edit on the supposition that general readers (or such persons as journalists checking information) are quite that dim. Just as it is my view that the topic isn't worth a stand alone article, so also it is not worth an extended debate of the kind that your above comment seems to desire. I don't think it's quite that exciting.  Qexigator (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Qexigator: My apologies - I didn't notice your reply. Thanks for a sensible set of statements. (I don't agree with all of them, but I don't feel the need to get "hot under the collar", either.)
 * I don't happen to think that we should edit on the supposition that general readers (or such persons as journalists checking information) are quite that dim. - "In general", and "on the whole" I would normally agree with you. Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that in making that seemingly reasonable assumption, we are both wrong. (Just one example: George Washington Wins Promotion to Six-Star Rank, Eugene Register-Guard'', October 12, 1976) Hence, despite the sensibility of your assumption, my evidence says we are both wrong, and hence I can't agree with you.
 * Just as it is my view that the topic isn't worth a stand alone article - I have tried to explain that "6-star rank" and "GAS" are different things which have some things in common. Can you perhaps explain to me what is missing from my explanation that causes you not to be convinced? Your help would be appreciated.
 * also it is not worth an extended debate of the kind that your above comment seems to desire. - Perhaps it isn't, but have you looked at the talk page archives? My personal POV is that is should not require an extended debate, but my experience, and the experiences recorded in the archives, suggest that there are others who disagree with us, so it has now become my expectation that this topic requires what I would consider excessive levels of detailed discussion.
 * I don't think it's quite that exciting. No, neither do I. Nevertheless, there seem to be an endless supply of editors who chose to ignore things that don't suit their personal P's of V, and wish to make a huge fuss about irrelevant things. I am indeed fortunate that you are not one of them. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pdfpdf: About "supposition" above. There may be a tendency to use fsg/fsa loosely, colloquially, idiomatically, in jocular fashion, in journalese and similar patois, among both the military and civil population, and likewise ssg. But what ripple of excitement there may have been in USA about the posthumous appointment awarded in 1976 to honour the new republic's first POTUS has had more than 30 years to be lost in other turbulences, even in the estimable (now university) city of Eugene, Oregon, for which the first cabin had not been erected before 1846, but today is notable for a connection with the creation of the Wiki, as well as its daily newspaper The Register-Guard with its interesting history from 1867 through 1976 to the present day. Thank you for having led my attention to this. Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I see no support for this proposal. I suggest it be closed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Restore

 * Have a look at - In December 2012 the article was about 6-star rank. During September 2013 it seems to have been changed to no longer be about 6-star rank.
 * I propose the article be restored to being about 6-star rank. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That version has no sources. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * a) So what? Surely you are not asserting that an article about green bananas with accurate un-sourced statements should be turned into an article about purple carrots simply because you have found some references about purple carrots?!
 * Further, just because you have found a reference that supports both purple carrots AND the second version of green bananas does NOT contradict un-sourced information about the original version of green bananas.
 * b) In any case, the original information is NOT un-sourced.
 * c) I have asked you several times to do your homework and educate yourself on the subject matter. I have seen NO evidence that you have even attempted to do this. You repeatedly continue to make the same inaccurate statements.
 * d) My statements are accurate, whether they you like them or agree with them or not. Just because they are inadequately referenced does NOT make them inaccurate.
 * e) Quoting articles containing false and/or inaccurate information is not an excuse, much less a justification, for removing accurate inadequately correct information. In case you didn't know, that's what the tag is for. The tag does NOT mean "this statement is false/wrong/whatever", it means that a citation is needed. The fact that a citation is needed and has not yet been found does NOT mean "this statement is false/wrong/whatever".
 * I am about to review the article and replace irrelevant statements about the 6-star rank with relevant and accurate statements about the 6-star rank. Please remember that this article is about the 6-star rank - there is already a separate article about General of the Armies of the United States and THIS article is NOT about that topic. Please do NOT revert statements unless you have EVIDENCE that they are wrong, and in that case, please supply the evidence.
 * Should you disagree with what I write, please discuss your disagreements here on this talk page.
 * Please do NOT revert them. (Reverting them without discussion is vandalism, and will be treated accordingly.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it. Replacing a fully sourced article with unsourced material is vandalism. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it. - Where? i.e. No, you haven't discussed it - ANYWHERE.
 * "Replacing a fully sourced article with unsourced material is vandalism'' - Nonsence! PARTICULARLY given I have described EXACTLY my rationale above. Do I need to report this at AI/V, or are you going to start complying with Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and etiquette, and start behaving yourself? It's YOUR choice. Quite clearly, you are being completely recalcitrant.
 * I'll say it again, this time in ALLCAPS so you can't state you didn't notice it: SHOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH WHAT I WRITE, PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR DISAGREEMENTS HERE ON THIS TALK PAGE. I think that is unambiguous. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have requested input at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the "heads up". The discussion now seems to be spread across several pages. I suggest we try to keep the discussion all on the one page. Do you agree? If so, which page do you suggest? If not, what do you suggest? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed closure
There has been no progress on this since last November, when it was proposed to close it (see above). There was no consensus to merge then, and there's been no progress towards it since, so it should be closed as no merge. Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that the article is being shaped up with more text, and perhaps more to come, the old proposal to merge should be closed. The newer content is putting the US section in better perspective, but at the same time, shows the US as the prime influence in the use and development of star-ranking for modern military forces, and the country which has been most concerned (for reasons partly of domestic politics, and also with comparative ranking with allies in wartime) about "six-star" status, while preserving the position of the commander-in-chief in that democratic federal republic, who unlike in some countries is not, as such, a ranking general of any grade, even if he has been, such as Washington and MacArthur's comtemporary, Ike, formerly Supreme Allied Commander, Allied Forces in Europe. Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material
I see nothing in the three sources given at the end of the MacArthur paragraph about 1944 or MacArthur declining the offer. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking? Just because you are ignorant, or you can't find something does NOT mean that it is NOT a fact. Do you have any evidence that it is NOT a fact? No, you don't. Until such time as you produce some, you have NO justification for claiming it is NOT a fact. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have looked in all three sources. They do not support the claim made in the article.
 * Please do not call other editors ignorant. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not quote some of some peoples statements out of context and twist your mis-quoted mis-statements to your biased purposes. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no source saying the Register is erroneous. DrKiernan (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are pretty good at making unsupported false statements, aren't you. I think this is the fourth or fifth I've noticed.
 * Your credibility is, at best, dubious
 * There is no source saying the Register is erroneous. Nonsense.
 * Oh yes there are! There are dozens of sources that say 6-star rank does not exist. There are NO statements ANYWHERE (except this ONE article) saying that Washington was appointed to a 6 star rank. How could they? There is no such thing as a 6-star rank. Do your homework please. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no sources in the article for those claims. There is at least one source describing his appointment as a six-star rank. I have "done my homework": as shown by my introduction of sourced material into the article, as opposed to the unsourced original research that was there before and that has been introduced now. Please stop being so confrontational and rude. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is at least one source describing his appointment as a six-star rank. - Spin doctoring! There is one, and only one, and therefore at most one, source making this assertion, and it provides NO explanation and NO evidence to support the assertion. In Wikipedia terminology, it is WP:OR and thus an unreliable source. I challenge you to provide ANY evidence at all of a second source, or of the reliability of this source on this matter . Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding unsourced material. DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add some reality to your very biased point of view, and please make an attempt to supply relevant responses to the questions your have been asked. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * a) Just because a FACT does not have a supporting reference does NOT change the reality that it is a fact - whatever your personal opinion is.
 * b) Just because you can find a reference that is no better than WP:OR does NOT mean that what it says is a fact!
 * See Verifiability for guidance. DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why retain the image for a non-fact?
The article's present use of the insignia image is in contradiction to the text of the present version, maybe in violation of one or more WP, SYN and OR, NPOV or UNDUE. The image has been there for a long time. It stems from February 2009, when the caption was: "Conjectural Design for General of the Armies".. Editors will be aware that the article has been much revised and re-revised since then. Qexigator (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no source for this image. It is made up. It should be removed.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed: it should be removed from this article, and avoid appearing to give it some spurious authenticity; but note that "More than 100 pages link to" the image file --Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You brought this up a year ago and last replied six months ago, but are just now removing the image in question?  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 13:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was removed in February as well. It was re-added without discussion or an edit summary a few hours ago, so Qexigator re-removed it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger that then.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

but note that "More than 100 pages link to" the image file File:6_Star.svg - That's because, for reasons that I have never understood, it appears in US officer ranks ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I added it, wrongly assuming that because it appeared in another article and in the template, that the opposition to it had subsided. I should have known better, and again, my apologies.

I have never understood this opposition. The image in question adds to the article. The caption (which I copied verbatim from another article) was very modest in its claims. There are no non-facts involved. The insignia was of course never authorised, any more than was the rank, and the article did not claim that it was.

We don't normally require sources to verify images, other than for copyright clearance purposes. The information is supposed to be in the text, including the image caption, rather than in the image itself, which merely supports the text. Manual of Style/Images reads in part ''images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals and later images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images''.

The removal of this, the only image in the article, on the grounds that it's not provably authentic seems in plain and simple breach of this guideline. Am I missing something there?

I was in any case intending to look for a source to provide a more informative (and verifiable) caption, and I'll still do that. If such can be found, is there any objection to my then (and only then) putting the image back? Andrewa (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable/logical to me. (i.e. I'm supportive.) But sadly, DrKieran: a) Has a different POV. b) Is an admin and can thus throw his weight around. c) Has enough "friends" to support his POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel I need to reply at some length to that, and in his defense despite agreeing about the POV.


 * If DrKieran or any other admin (aka sysop, and self included) decides to throw his weight around, they should be de-sysopped. An admin has no special authority. If there are specific instances, raise them first on his talk page, and then if you're unsatisfied with the response feel free to raise them on mine or by email (via the link at my user page of course) and I'll give you advice on how to proceed (or why not to, and that in the gentlest possible terms I promise).


 * Admins have a few extra tools, and correspondingly extra responsibilities when using them. Some of them can do a lot of damage, very little of it irreparable but it can waste a lot of other people's time fixing it (and I've personally caused a few such stuff-ups, I'm human too). And so we're expected to make a particular effort to know, understand and follow policies, guidelines, and procedures.


 * (And it can require a lot of effort, and even then we often don't agree, this being a classic case in point, see below!)


 * And that's it. Jimbo has repeatedly said adminship should be no big thing, and AFAIK this principle has never been challenged.


 * But nor do we have any less authority than other contributors, nor any fewer rights. Not in theory, anyway. (-> Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The policy governing the removal is Original images. This design of five stars in a circle and one in the middle appears to be unpublished and so without a source we cannot determine whether it is a novel design by a wikipedian or one based on an official draft. DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ROTFL! Just a tiny bit of consistency from you would dramatically raise my opinion of your judgments / edicts / pronouncements. But as I know from past experience, you never let ANYTHING other than your own POV get in the way of ... your own POV. (i.e. Your reply is biased nonsense, but as you won't look, let alone "can't see", past the end of your nose ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with User:Andrewa, if this is a rank that doesn't even exist, then why can't a non-copyright image detailing what it might look like be included in the article about said rank? This article isn't about general of the armies, it's about a six-star general.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why not a line of six stars, or a circle of six stars, or two lines of three stars each, or a triangle of six stars? I see no point in adding an unrelated image of six stars. It adds no educational value and can be misinterpreted as a depiction of an official insignia. If a source for an official draft is found, then I have no objection to its inclusion, suitably captioned. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the reasonable answer to the question put: "Why retain the image for a non-fact?" Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Because somebody has claimed that this was from a government archive. I don't think there's been any such claim for these other configurations (and please don't anybody now make one just to prove the point). This may not be much to go on, but the opposition to this image's use offers even less, so far. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK... so, you're claiming that this use of this image is in breach of WP:OI?


 * It doesn't seem to be so to me. From time to time it has been claimed that this image appears in a US government archive... I'd need to dredge through some talk page archives to find these claims, but they should be verifiable. Has there been any attempt, ever, to verify them, either by accessing that archive or by contacting the contributors? What was the result? Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_157, specifically: "perusal of the source by two independent commentators (one forum post and User:OberRanks) has failed to verify the claim. Specifically, the forum contributor contacted Jim Zobel at the MacArthur Archive and the response was "no TIOH sketch in MacArthur's files as is claimed in multiple articles" and OberRanks acquired copies of the files directly from the archive and confirmed that they do not include an Institute of Heraldry sketch from 1945." DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's exactly the sort of reference to prior discussion that is most helpful IMO. Why reinvent the wheel?


 * But that archived discussion links to Talk:General of the Armies which is even more interesting. It debunks the claim that this is an official Institute of Heraldry proposal, but it confirms that such a sketch is in the archives, as are others based on it. So we do now have the provenance of the insignia. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been said to rebut the main objections: first, the image would not improve or support the informative value of the article; secondly, its legitimacy is suspect, and remains unverified; thirdly, the article itself states that "six-star rank" is a non-fact, in that it does not and never has existed. Likewise, it is no less dubious in Template:US officer ranks, as mentioned above by another. Qexigator (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The insignia is a fascinating factoid, and clearly encyclopedic. Now that we have its provenance (see above) and can write a suitable and verifiable caption, its inclusion in the article is strongly supported by the guidelines noted above.


 * I'm curious as to where you draw the line between facts and non-facts. The proposed rank has never existed, true, but then neither has Harry Potter, in a sense. He is no less a fact for this, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. The sketch of the insignia is far more factual than Hogwarts.


 * Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. There is a place for articles that rely entirely on official US Army documents, rejecting all other sources, but this is not it.


 * So, can I now put the image back? Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: for reasons given above, including by DrKiernan. Harry Potter begins and ends as fiction. The topic of this article is reporting on a rank that never was, and for which there has never been an authentic insignia. We are not here to publish inauthentic artwork. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this image disputed anywhere else? If it doesn't belong in an article about a "non-fact", then how is it acceptable in articles about established facts? I support reinstating the image.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:The question is about suitability for this article. Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, well a sizable part of the article discusses general of the armies, and this image was uploaded as "Conjectural Design, proposed 1945, for rank insignia for US General of the Armies".  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 22:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That may be circular reasoning, associated with the discussion on Merger, above. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (Replying to the oppose above) let me get this straight... you claim that this is a rank that never was, and that this artwork is somehow not suitable to illustrate such a rank? What artwork would be suitable for this article? Surely you're not saying we must find official artwork for an unofficial rank?


 * This looks more like an argument for deletion of the article than for its content. We've actually been down that path before, see Articles for deletion/6 star rank. But I can't find any discussion that overturned this decision to delete... can anyone help there? (I may even have participated in such a discussion, but my memory is not perfect.) Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A second source
As well as the six star general "projected" insignia, recognized in 1964 by the Army but never worn or held by anyone contained in a VERY large package in the mail from the IOH about this rank insignia received by OberRanks, there appear to be several possible sources for this image already in the article itself... Foster, Frank C. (2011) United States Army Medal, Badges and Insignias, Medals of America Press, ISBN 9781884452673, page 19 particularly caught my eye. It's on Google books but I got strange results looking for it on Amazon.

Surely somebody has this handy? What exactly does it say about this insignia om page 19? Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It says: "After World War I, the title of 'General of the Armies of the United States' was created and conferred upon General John J. Pershing but no special insignia was designated until 1944 when General of the Army was established by Congress with a circle of five stars below the gold colored Coat of Arms of the United States. In 1955, a similar effort was made to reward General Douglas MacArthur, this time with specifying a six star rank, but it never came to fruition."  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 04:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No mention at all of the six-star insignia, then? Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It mentions it, but only says the rank would have six stars.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 06:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that is at least consistent with the image, but obviously doesn't provide any reason for preferring this configuration over the other alternatives mentioned above. I wonder do any of the other four references cited?
 * It does lend a little more support to the use of the image, and taken together with the material from IOR, I can't see any problem with reinstating the image. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article
Assuming that this article does continue to exist, I think its scope should be broadened to match its title. North Korea, in particular, appears to have a six star rank, but its insignia does not include six stars, any more than that of a five-star graded field marshal includes five.

That's not to say that these ranks would necessarily outrank a US five star rank in the (unlikely) event of a joint command being set up. Such speculated relationships do not belong in Wikipedia articles in any form.

And with fear and trembling I say, see also Talk:Five-star rank. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

MILTERMS
Wikipedia's style guide is quite clear on the subject - military ranks (except where used as part of a name) are not proper nouns and take lower case. The specific guidance is laid out in WP:MILTERMS, but the general guidance at MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". I've had every reason under the sun why this rank should be capitalised, but the most common erroneous one is "that the sources use capitals". This is nonsense - sources are for facts, not style. A read of the essay Specialist style fallacy explains this fallacy in some depth. However important generals are, the rules of grammar are the same for corporals as they are for generals. Shem (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator position
How, and where, do you report the abuse by an Administrator of his Administrator position? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You could try WP:ANI, but as there is no abuse, a report there is unlikely to have the outcome you want. Note that you were warned not to edit this article before gaining consensus to do so here and here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you attempted to discuss this (alleged) abuse on their own talk page? That's normally the first step. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that Pdfpdf would answer. And there's no claim of abuse of admin powers in that link that I can see.
 * Probably they are falling into the common trap of thinking that an admin is not able to also act as an editor, with all the rights that this involves. In business (I was a systems programmer and later an EDP auditor) I always used to set up separate user ids for powerful privileges, with separate passwords, and sternly instruct the holders to use their powerful accounts only when needed. But while we don't actually prohibit admins from transparently doing the same thing here as far as I can see, we discourage it. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

President and Six-Star rank
Although no longer de rigueur, Presidents used to be fitted for military uniforms soon after inauguration. I was always under the impression that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, that the Prsident's insignia was indeed a circle of 'SIX STARS'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.73.128 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is CiC a mlitary position in USA? Note List of United States Presidents by military rank. The US military is responsible to the civil power, that is, the President as the impeachable executive of the laws of Congress under the Constitution. The Constitution states the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”  Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Recently added images?
Is a picture of Podunk Oregon really relevant just because the local newspaper said the rank had six stars? Please don't be trying to make a WP:POINT.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not belittle Eugene. It is a major city of the Pacific Northwest, with a history characteristic of many others in the USA, and typical of the expansion of that country from the time of George Washington to the present day,(+) comparable with Omaha NE, birthplace of President Ford, named in the article, and Grand Rapids MI, where he was raised and has his "resting place"; and with Representative Nedzi's Hamtramck MI and McLean VA. Its relevance to the article will be apparent to any regular editor:  its newspaper is the sole source so far identified for the use of "six-star". It is notable that no other source has been found. If that suggests that the article is undue, and would be better merged, so be it.  But just now it is a stand alone article, and there are some who feel that articles are generally improved by well-captioned images, preferably in colour, to relieve the prosy facts of bare text.  Qexigator (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I do not express, nor have I ever expressed, any opinion about this city.
 * Conversely, I have been, (and would continue to be), scathingly negative about the journalist who, alone on the planet and quoting no supporting evidence from any source, official or otherwise, decided to invent the so-called "fact".
 * And sorry User:Sturmgewehr88, but about a year ago User:DrKiernan decided that the existence of this highly dubious claim was more than sufficient justification for him to abuse his power as an administrator, not to just make a WP:POINT. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Under a Common Law justice system such as that of the USA it is unwarranted to condemn a party without letting him be heard in his defence. The paper's editor may have had good reason to print it, perhaps in connection with something we know nothing about. Let him have the benefit of the doubt. MacArthur was held in high esteem as a commanding officer who, under successive commanders-in-chief, had trained and led in warfare officers and enlisted men, who had come from their homesteads, townships and cities, in defence of their country's constitutional government and the extension of its worldwide influence. Qexigator (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's very noble of you, but the simple fact of the matter is that Washington (not MacArthur) was NOT appointed to a 6 star rank, and, as there is no such thing as a 6 star rank, the statement is: i) unverified; ii) unverifiable; iii) false; and iv) nonsense.
 * ''Don't you think it's just a "little strange" that this newspaper is the ONLY place on the planet that one can find this so-called "statement of fact"?
 * No doubt the editor who published the headline saying that the President that was actually elected had been defeated "may have had good reason to print it", but the simple fact is: it was a false statement. It has NOTHING to do with "Common Law".
 * No. Sorry. Obvious rubbish is obvious rubbish. Common Law justice does NOT have anything to do with the matter. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing NYT has now been added as a source, my case for the image of Eugene is admittedly less strong than before, but it does no harm, and in its own way can be seen as an improving embellishment. Qexigator (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, how about we add an image of New York now? Or better yet, add the cover of United States Army Medal, Badges and Insignias, Medals of America because "six star rank" is mentioned.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * An image of that cover is not likely to be available, but if it were, what caption would you propose for the information of readers of this article? Or for NY would you propose File:Old NY Times Building 01.jpg, suitably captioned? --Qexigator (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... No, just no. I'm done. User:Andrewa, good luck.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 22:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should call a spade a spade. This image and another were only added in order to justify removal of the more relevant image. We should not continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is why I'm through arguing over this article. It's a complete waste of my time to deal with editors who'd rather ruin an article to make a point than improve the article. Besides the two irrelevant images (I've never seen an article that included images of cities merely because the local newspaper briefly mentions the subject), there's the undue weight towards General of the Armies, although I'm sure there'll be opposition to inclusion of Admiral of the Navy or Generalissimus of the Soviet Union.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you make some good points and I'm in general agreement with these. But remember the famous unattributable quote about good men doing nothing. And I'm confident that Wikipedia's ideals will ultimately prevail, even against the might of the US military which has promoted Washington to OF-$$\infty$$, and worse, seem to regard this as a serving not a ceremonial rank. And there have been several other strange decisions. The logical gymnastics these have required are the basic problem here, in my opinion. It's not Wikipedia's fault, it's really difficult to make any sense of it without becoming POV and even sarcastic, as I have just again proven to myself at least. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "'And I'm confident that Wikipedia's ideals will ultimately prevail, even against the might of the US military which has promoted Washington to OF-$$\infty$$" – The simple reason is "because Murica 🇺🇸", if you catch my drift. Anyway, this article should expand to include George Dewey and equivalent ranks from other countries, like Taewonsu.  ミーラー強斗武 ' (StG88ぬ会話) 01:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle. First time I've heard the term Murica but I think I get the sense. (I wonder what Washington would have thought of his "promotion". He may well have seen it as a uncalled-for insult to the one- and two- star generals who served under him, don't you think? Some generals become very supportive, even protective, of their immediate reports, and Washington was a case in point. I think that if he were asked to parade today, he'd insist on wearing the three stars which he wore while serving.) Andrewa (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making a mistaken inference here, as you can see if you consider my comments above (from the top of the page) and below. But some of the above discussion is barely intelligible. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you think I'm mistaken, and that's not altogether surprising. The images do not a lot of harm... They're badly formatted and the second is of little relevance to the topic, but there are far worse problems with the article.


 * But do you really claim that you would have added these images anyway, had I not pointed out that your removal of the six-star insignia was in violation of the image usage guidelines?


 * Agree that some of the above is barely intelligible. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1_Anyone is free to reformat. 2_When the images were placed, the edit summary invited comment on "aacceptable?". 3_My series of other edits have improved the text. If anyone doubted your good faith and diligent attention to others' work, your adverse comments would seem to be, shall we say, misguided.  Yes, I deny the self-important supposition that my addition of the images was a result of your pointing out that removal of the six-star insignia was in violation of the image usage guidelines.  I see the other images as an improvement, for the reasons given. The dubious image which was removed could be added, but reasons have been given for opposing it. Why not try and address the edits on their merits, instead of  succumbing to ad hominem-ish mistrust? Qexigator (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it best left to others to judge the allegation of pointiness and the adequacy of this reply.


 * I think that an image of Washington is not a bad idea, but I'm not sure whether this is the best one, and it certainly shouldn't be the only image. And I think the other one should simply be removed. Comments from others? Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove the two irrelevant images and replace them with an image of Washington, preferably in uniform.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now three images in all... One of the Macarthur monument, one of the former NYT building, and a distant view of a town that contains the office of another newspaper. The only relevance of the last two images seems to be that these two newspapers are both cited as saying that Washington was promoted to six star rank. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)