Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 5

Yet another tangent ...
User:Andrewa: Thanks for the heads-up. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was tempted to dive in with a response, but I think I'll give the matter some more thought before responding. In the meantime, a few thoughts, comments and questions: Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For-general-information: It has been my ... impression / belief / understanding / whatever that six-star rank is a US thing; that no other country has used or considered using the ... concept / idea / term / whatever.
 * I have seen no evidence that any of the highest military ranks are six-star ranks.
 * Somewhere above it states or implies that Stalin and Goering were appointed to six-star ranks. I would disagree with such statements. I would like to understand the basis for such statements, and I would like to read the evidence that supports such statements.


 * In view of Pdfpdf's comments (04:43, 2 September), the present version does not support "and corresponding ranks in other militaries/ countries" for revised first sentence proposed above. But then, how does the present version fail to tally with the article as a whole: why not simply remove "dubious tag"? Is it left over from an earlier version? Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree that if six star is just a US thing, then the dubious tag can be removed. But is it?
 * Let me ask you both a related question... did Rommel have a five star rank?
 * I think he did. If not, then we need to do some corrections elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you mention it (Andrewa,10:06, 2 September), noted that Five-star rank's lead states "..Not all armed forces have such a rank, and in those that do the actual insignia of the "five-star ranks" may not contain five stars...Typically, five-star officers hold the rank of General of the Army, admiral of the fleet, grand admiral, field marshal, Generalfeldmarschall, marshal of the air force, general of the Air Force, and several other similarly named ranks. Five-star ranks are extremely senior - usually the highest ranks - and thus are very rare...", which is "dubious" (if not plain wrong). Is this getting us nearer the issue? Qexigator (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL! That should teach me not to open cans of worms! ;-)
 * Several new sub-threads have arisen that fork the discussion in several directions. As an experiment, I'll divide them into level 3 sub-headings to see if this makes the subsequent discussions easier to follow.
 * (i.e. I'm also canvassing opinions on whether this experiment helps clarify things, or just adds to the confusion.)
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (P.S. I'm about to go back into hibernation, but as Andrewa has discovered, you can rattle my cage by posting something on my talk page. Have fun. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

Is "six star" just a US thing?
"If six star is just a US thing, ... But is it?"

Yes, that was the point of my comment. I don't know if it is just a US thing, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is anything other than a US thing. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Would Rommel and Birdwood having five-star ranks count as evidence that it is anything other than a US thing? If so, see below. If not, what would count? Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Several questions there!!
 * Would Rommel and Birdwood having five-star ranks - Well, they didn't. So what's the question?
 * Would Rommel and Birdwood having five-star ranks count as evidence that it is anything other than a US thing? - Given that the "it" is six-star rank, I don't understand why you might think ANYBODY having 5* rank would have anything to do with 6* rank. i.e. I don't understand the question, or alternatively, I do understand, but don't understand its relevance, or alternatively, ... not relevant, or alternatively, ... Huh? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, see below. - Which bit below?
 * If not, what would count? - Too vague. Please recast as a more specific question.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they didn't... Evidence? See talk:Five-star rank.
 * Would... See above.
 * If so... If not.. I think that, again, the reply above (diff in the previous line) answers these. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Rommel have a 5* rank?
Given that Five-star ranks did not exist before 15 December 1944, I would say no. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See below at.


 * Rommel died in 1944, but before anyone in the US forces held five star rank. Does this mean that if he had lived a few more months, that his rank would have then become five star on December 16 of that year? This makes no sense to me. Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Friedrich Paulus, on the other hand, lived until 1957. He was taken prisoner in 1943, the day after his promotion to Generalfeldmarschall in fact. Is there any evidence that he did not still hold this rank in 1944, when the American five-star ranks were created? If he did still hold the rank of Generalfeldmarschall after this time, it would then be a five star rank, would it not? Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that in the section, a source is cited as saying he did. Have you any sources that say he didn't? Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to continue this as necessary. But the position below is that I have provided a reliable source that does call Rommel's rank five star, and there is as yet not a shred of evidence to contradict this. There is an argument above by, which I think is a flawed one but in any case doesn't stand up against the fact that the literature does call it a five-star rank, and there are arguments below by that this source doesn't count.


 * These are all very well, but what we really need is some citeable authority supporting the claim that Rommel's rank was not five-star.


 * Why? Clearly, I'm missing something here: a) Who cares if Rommel's rank is 5*, & b) Why do they care? & c) What difference does it make? & d) To what does it make a difference? e) etc.
 * When do we move on to debating how many angels there can be on the head of a pin? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for exiting here - with luck I'll address the remaining issues over the weekend. (Apologies) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? Because we have a citation of a reliable source as evidence that Rommel's rank is considered to be five-star, and so far none that it's not other than the personal opinions of contributors, which don't carry much weight without a citation.


 * a) See Talk:five-star rank.


 * b) See Talk:five-star rank.


 * c) If Rommel etc didn't have five-star ranks, then Goering didn't have a six-star rank, and I'll then concede that point. Hypothetical at this time, but again see Talk:five-star rank.


 * d) and e) See reply to c) immediately above.


 * When... I suppose when someone suggests that it's worth discussing further. Personally I think that the last word has been said on that particular issue, but that we can make further progress on these ones. I could be wrong on both counts. (-> Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If they or others do wish to further debate this, with or without this evidence, then I'm happy to look for more sources. But I will state clearly that in the absence of evidence to support the claim that Rommel's rank should not be called five-star, I think that this is a waste of time, and that they should concede the point and move on. It's not a sin to change your mind, just the opposite in fact.


 * If we do need to discuss this further, then I suggest we do so at talk:five-star rank, and I'll look for more sources to cite there. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, the 5* article would not be acceptable for publication by a reputable independent publisher without properly fact-checking and clarifying the time and country questions touched on here. But, while there is room for improvement on the part of any editor willing to do it, the present version passes muster in the sense that it is unlikely to cause a reader to become and remain seriously misinformed. Qexigator (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 3 currently of that article reads in part Typically, five-star officers hold the rank of General of the Army, admiral of the fleet, grand admiral, field marshal, Generalfeldmarschall, marshal of the air force, general of the Air Force, and several other similarly named ranks (my emphasis). The Field marshal (Germany) article to which that sentence links (via a redirect from Generalfeldmarschall) has a section on Nazi Germany which explicitly mentions Rommel, so the reader would form the impression that Rommel's rank was five-star. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, my comment above (22:41, 4 September) was taking that into account- there is room for improvement on the part of any editor willing to do it in the other article, too. Qexigator (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * By that logic then, did Friedrich Paulus have a five-star rank after 1944? He was a Soviet prisoner of war by that time of course. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Five-star rank, a section I have just initiated. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content of Five-star rank footnotes

 * I note that ... "someone" ... has taken it upon himself to alter the footnotes of Five-star rank and inaccurately state that Dewey & Pershing "have been promoted to five-star rank or above".
 * ''This is WP:OR, and quite simply, bullshit wrong.
 * ''There is NO US rank above 5*
 * ''5* rank did not exist before 15 December 1944 - Dewey & Pershing were NOT promoted to 5* rank.
 * One day when I'm feeling calm, collected and ruthless, I will remove the nonsense. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly agree with this edit of yours. Not sure who you are referring to as "someone", I hope it's not me!
 * ''(No, not you - it was an IP editor. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC))
 * ''(Thanks and whew! I do stuff up sometimes. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC))


 * Dewey and Pershing had of course already been promoted to ranks that were superior to five-star, by reason of grade, before 1944. The authorities were quite explicit about this in 1944. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Five-star rank, a section I have just initiated. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Five-star ranks are extremely senior
[This subheading is an abbreviation of: Five-star ranks are extremely senior - usually the highest ranks - and thus are very rare...", which is "dubious" (if not plain wrong).] Qexigator: Which bit(s) of "Five-star ranks are extremely senior - usually the highest ranks - and thus are very rare..." do you consider to be "dubious" (if not plain wrong)? In my opinion, "Five-star ranks are extremely senior", and they are indeed "usually the highest ranks". I'm not sure what value "and thus are very rare" adds - personally, I don't think it adds any value. Is it that phrase you are referring to, or something else? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was referring to the quoted words: Five-star rank's lead states "..Not all armed forces have such a rank, and in those that do the actual insignia of the "five-star ranks" may not contain five stars...Typically, five-star officers hold the rank of General of the Army, admiral of the fleet, grand admiral, field marshal, Generalfeldmarschall, marshal of the air force, general of the Air Force, and several other similarly named ranks. Five-star ranks are extremely senior - usually the highest ranks - and thus are very rare...  Qexigator (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this getting us nearer the issue?
Well Qexigator, it would probably help to know what you consider to be "the issue" before anyone tries to answer your question. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * At least one aspect of the issue is the misinformation about five-star quoted above. Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC).


 * I think it is progress. I'm beginning to understand the views (and they're not necessarily POVs as Wikipedia uses the term) that I'm up against.


 * One crucial point is whether we can refer to ranks before 1944 as five star ranks.


 * I would argue that we can and that people do. The British, Australian etc ranks of Admiral of the Fleet and Field Marshal etc didn't change because of a US action. If they are now five star ranks, then they always were five star ranks. Obviously they couldn't be called that before the term existed, but they can correctly be called that now, including when we now refer to the holders of these ranks before 1944. If this is incorrect then I have some rethinking to do.


 * This is complicated by the reuse of terms such as Reichsmarschall and even more blatantly Captain to mean different ranks from time to time. It's not valid to argue that the creation of a five-star rank of General of the Army in 1944 automatically made Grant's rank of General of the Army of the United States into a five star rank. Although this is often shortened to General of the Army, and both ranks are validly covered by our article General of the Army (United States), they are still different ranks with the same name. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In brief, cannot refer to any rank as five* or six* in USA or any other country without reliable external source, otherwise trapped in neologism. Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is probably overstating the onus of proof a little, but who cares, as it's so easily done: This was Rommel's fifth promotion since his promotion to Generalmajor in August 1939, and in achieving five-star rank he had become "an immortal". (My emphasis, and I've replaced the single quotes by double to make the Wikisyntax simpler.) This was on the very first page of a Google search  that gave me 793,000 ghits (your results may vary).


 * So, can we now use five-star for Rommel, William Birdwood, etc? If so, that would be progress IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the other information available, that book errs for reasons given above. The book was published in 2011, the author, Peter Caddick-Adams, may have used Wikipedia as source for 5*, or may have written the Wikipedia article. But the book states he is a lecturer at Cranfield Military Academy (see Defence Academy of the United Kingdom) working alongside Richard Holmes (military historian). Even for a book aimed at the American market and US military students he should know that Rommel was not 5* in any meaningful sense. The author "... was the official NATO Historian in Bosnia during 1996-7, as well as the UK Historian during the Iraq War of 2003, and has written extensively on the campaigns he witnessed." Despite his credentials he seems to have lapsed into journalese-ish jargon: "Peter regularly broadcasts on TV and radio, also writing for newspapers and websites..." Field marshal (Australia) also repeats the 5* error in the lead with no external source to support it. Is there a star rating for a "can of worms"? Qexigator (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What other information available?


 * Will you similarly disallow any other source we find as unreliable just because they should know that Rommel was not 5* in any meaningful sense? Isn't this a circular argument?


 * Do you have a source to support your claim that Rommel was not 5* in any meaningful sense? If so, then we should record the fact that authorities differ. If not, then I think the conclusion is fairly obvious.


 * As for the argument that the author may have used Wikipedia as source for 5*, or may have written the Wikipedia article, they do not cite Wikipedia as a source, and in view of that such speculation is a dangerous precedent if we accept it as a reason to disallow the source. I'm fairly confident that we won't find the general community willing to accept it as an argument. It would mean that, once we published a claim, any subsequently published reliable sources would need to be disallowed as references for that claim, whether they cited Wikipedia or not.


 * There's no error in the Field Marshal (Australia) article, as you suppose there to be. It's a five star rank. It always was, just as an octopus always was a cephalopod. It didn't just become one when the term cephalopod was invented. If we were to follow that line of thinking, then the ammonoidea wouldn't be cephalopods at all. In fact they wouldn't be anything, because they became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period, before any words at all were invented to describe them.


 * So definitely agree there's a can of worms if we accept your line of thinking. It has enormous ramifications. But they are all avoidable, simply by accepting the facts. Starting with, Rommel had a five-star rank. As did Birdwood.


 * Having accepted that, we can then see what the ramifications are for six-star ranks, which raises some far more difficult issues. But there's no point in trying that until the relatively easy cases of five-star ranks are agreed. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, the argument that the source is unreliable because the author may have read the 5* article or may have written part of it is complete bollocks. According to that line of thinking, no post-Wikipedia source is reliable. Unless there is blatant evidence for this, your argument is invalid.
 * In my opinion, I think we need a black and white definition of * rank if we're ever going to get past this massive debate. User:Pdfpdf claims that 6* rank doesn't exist and never has, but how are you so sure? As User:Andrewa pointed out, just because a rank pre-existed before the term doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the term now or then. So if we define 6* rank as "any rank superior to 5* rank but junior to 7* rank", for example, then surely Reichsmarshal and Generalissimus of the Soviet Union fit the bill? If it doesn't, then please define 1*, 2*, 3*, 4*, and 5* so we can identify the problem.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 05:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Having accepted that Rommel had a five-star rank, as did Birdwood (per Andrewa 04:09, 3 September): but that's the issue, it is a false premise, even if propagated by the likes of Caddick-Adams (any others?). "other information" = facts such as date of Rommel's death, date of creation of 5* rank for select few US officers for known purpose of status vis-a-vis "field-marshal" among the allies (including Australia, of course) and, later, use of star code for NATO allies (not other countries such as Australia). Same applies to other sources, but would need reputable dictionary such as OED with etymology to support retrospective use for Rommel, or later use for any officer outside USA or NATO. Yes, I know about speculation as well as you do, but it remains a factual, if unlikely or improbable, possibility. There are numerous places where the Wikipedia putative neologism is being repeated. On examination, we may surmise that it would not be acceptable in a reputable publication with competent fact-checkers, Wikipedia "community" or not. There is a limit to how far logic-chopping is a useful exercise (pace StG). I doubt whether this issue can be resolved here. Qexigator (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * please support your claim that Rommel didn't hold a 5* rank with a source that explicitly states that he didn't hold a 5* rank, otherwise it's just speculation.
 * Also, NATO does not use "star code". They use "OF#" to identify officer ranks from multiple militaries, and not just generals/marshals. NATO also uses that system to compare "enemy" ranks with their own. So a Russian brigadier general is considered a OF6 to NATO. Similarly, because the American brigadier general rank is represented by one star, a Russian brigadier general is also considered a 1*. They are similar but unrelated concepts.
 * And what "Wikipedia putative neologism" are you referring to? If it's the concept of 6* rank, then I'd point out that it's been around since at least 1945, making it neither a neologism nor of Wikipedia.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 07:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It can only be resolved if we look honestly and openly at the issues in the light of Wikipedia's purpose and policies, and are prepared to question our own beliefs. Nobody bats 100.


 * Rommel's five-star rank is supported by the source I gave. It seems futile to try to comply with your demands for better sources, as I have complied with your earlier demand, only to find that you now won't accept the evidence you asked for.


 * And in any case, you are in no position to demand better sources. You have never offered any source to back up your claim that Rommel's rank, or Birdwood's rank, is not a five-star rank. It seems to be your own personal opinion. Here is not the place to promote it.


 * And it is an opinion with no logic behind it either. The five-star American ranks of 1944 were specifically created to be equal in grade to the existing Allied ranks of Field Marshal (Birdwood for example) and Admiral of Fleet. To deny that they are the same grade is quite simply illogical. Andrewa (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I second that.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 07:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to above comments: Adding false logic (support your claim that Rommel didn't hold a 5* rank with a source that explicitly states that he didn't hold a 5* rank, otherwise it's just speculation) to false premise (above) is the opposite of advancing the 5* case. The onus of sourcing is on assertion that the name 5* is so used, not on those who point out the known facts to the contrary. And yes, ...NATO also uses that system ... can be taken as read. But you are not being asked to "comply with my demands". We are now as near to the issue as we are likely to get, and it is as doubtful as ever whether it can be resolved here. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It really would help if you'd read and abide by WP:THREAD. The indenting of this comment again indicates that you are replying to yourself. This, perhaps (I do say perhaps) unfairly, suggests to me and I would hope to others that you don't want the discussion to be easy to follow. And again perhaps unfairly, I think I can see why you would want that. You're not making a lot of sense, frankly.


 * There's nothing false about that logic. It's a reasonable request. Back up your claim with a reference. What's so hard about that?


 * The onus of sourcing is on assertion that the name 5* is so used... agree. Done. Ignoring the reference won't make it go away. And now, the onus is on you to supply a reference to the contrary. Which you obviously can't do, or you would. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but my patience is not unlimited.


 * We are now as near to the issue as we are likely to get, and it is as doubtful as ever whether it can be resolved here. I'm hopeful it will be. Eventually, you'll have to come up with some evidence.


 * And my theory still is that the reason that you have not provided any evidence so far is that there isn't any, and that the reason that there isn't any is simply that your opinion that Rommel was not a five star officer is wrong. Happy to be proved wrong on this. Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa 11:28, 3 September. It appears to me your reasoning is unsustainable, and has failed to answer the points put. Obviously, that is not binding on you or anyone else, but others may agree at least in part. The onus is on those who contend for the 5* case (for the likes of Rommel) to present such evidence as there is, not on those who contend otherwise, as already pointed out to you. I have explained why I consider the Caddick-Adams source you cited is dubious, despite his credentials. If there is something better than that, it remains open to you or anyone else to present it for critical examination. Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * the burden of proof was on him, but now that he has provided a source, the burden is on you. You "explained why [you] consider" the source to be "dubious", however, the mere possibility that he read/contributed to the 5* article is not a even close to an acceptable reason to rule out the credibility of the source. Unless you have evidence that he used the article, the source is completely viable. So again, provide a source that explicitly says he didn't hold 5* rank.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * the mere possibility that he read/contributed to the 5* article is not an acceptable reason, agreed, but the reasons for looking doubtfully are objective and explained at 06:57, 3 September. Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only other reasons given in that post were that the author described Rommel's rank as five star and should have known better, a circular argument as was pointed out at the time, and that they'd had coverage in the press as an expert in the subject, which is a rather bizarre reason for considering them as unreliable. Face it, it's a good reference, and the onus is now on you. And I wish you luck. As evidence that the term is used, we just need examples, and it's hard to imagine how such evidence can be validly challenged. Evidence that it's not used is going to be a lot more difficult to find, and relatively easy to challenge.


 * But so far there isn't even any evidence to challenge. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa (02:56, 4 September)-  Your attempt to construct an argument in favour of your contention continues to be unconvincing and to suffer from its circularity, proceeding from a false premise. The dubiousness of the 5* case was explained (in 06:57, 3 September): ...date of Rommel's death, date of creation of 5* rank for select few US officers for known purpose of status vis-a-vis "field-marshal" among the allies (including Australia, of course) and, later, use of star code for NATO allies (not other countries such as Australia). Same applies to other sources, but would need reputable dictionary such as OED with etymology to support retrospective use for Rommel, or later use for any officer outside USA or NATO.  It follows that any source which appears to defy those facts must be dubious. Is there anything in Caddick-Adams (the one external source on which your case is resting) that shows him explaining to his readers that, while strictly his use of 5* of Rommel was out of time and incongruous, he was using a pseudo-equivalence for the purpose of making a comparison with Motogomery? The absence of any dictionary or other source is itself support for any competent fact-checker acting for an independent publisher to consider the source as dubious.  Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting theory, which you have now stated several times of course. Perhaps you should publish it. But not here, and until either you do author a reliable source yourself or find some other authority to cite supporting this view, I'm afraid it's of no interest to Wikipedia.


 * I don't think my argument is circular at all. Yours, on the other hand, still amounts to saying Caddick-Adams is not reliable because he supports a view that I oppose. If we accept that form of argument, we will be in all sorts of trouble.


 * Yes, I've only supplied one example. That was what you asked for. So can I ask, what evidence would you accept? That way, I hope I won't again waste time providing evidence that you summarily reject. The goal, after all, is to build consensus.


 * A dictionary is not likely to help IMO. But I'm curious as to what you mean by other source. Again, what evidence would you accept? Andrewa (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to go on further with this: is it not clear enough already that we simply do not agree. Shall we let it rest there? Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah I get it, you can't get your opinion through so you just want to drop the argument?  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 15:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that is not "it", as anyone can see who takes the trouble to read through my comments and replies without prejudice. I do not see how StG88's remark has anything to do with improving the article, or an intent to engage in collaborative editing. Qexigator (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, this seems to be straying into behavioural issues, and these should be raised on user talk pages rather than article talk pages. I'm sorry if that seems a bit legalistic. I but preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is indeed clear that you and do not consider Rommel's rank to be five-star. It is also clear that this is a key issue, with important consequences for the scope of the Six-star rank article (the topic of this talk page), and also for several other Wikipedia articles, notably but not only the five-star rank article itself. It is clear that the only authority yet cited does consider Rommel's rank to be five-star. Is that a fair summary so far?


 * I'm hoping that this might again rattle Pdfpdf's cage (as they put it), as they did start this section, and it seems now to have answered a question they asked above, see above. I wonder, has either the source we now have, or the arguments that you have raised against it, influenced their thinking? It would be good to hear from  as well, as they were involved not so long ago.


 * I think we have made progress, but it's a painful process. Perhaps this particular section should now close, as you suggest. The discussion as a whole still has a way to go, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa (19:00, 4 September)Last para ... this particular section should now close, agreed. not consider Rommel's rank to be five-star...fair summary so far?, agreed. Qexigator (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be no need to cite the particular post to which you are replying, so long as the threading convention is (finally) observed as here. Thank you!


 * My summary, of course, also read the only authority yet cited does consider Rommel's rank to be five-star. You don't need to comment on that part, but I am hopeful that any others reading this thread will draw the same conclusions that I draw from your silence on the matter. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Five-star rank, a section I have just initiated. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

On the related 5* question
Inclusion of Generalfeldmarschall in Five-star rank stems from January 2012 by HHaeckel, apparently without comment on that Talk page, which did, however include mention of an announcement in a UK press release: "The Queen has today appointed The Prince of Wales to honorary five-star rank in all three Services... to the honorary rank of Field Marshal. Her Majesty wishes to acknowledge the dedicated support of His Royal Highness to The Queen in her role as Commander-in-Chief.... Two Members of the Royal Family currently hold Five Star Rank - The Duke of Edinburgh (in all three services) and The Duke of Kent (Field Marshal)." It remains a matter of doubt how far that can be taken as supporting anything about the so-called 6* rank in USA or any other country. Would something about this improve the current version of 6*? Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It does support the proposition that there currently are five-star ranks in other NATO countries, but it's not particularly relevant in my opinion, as I don't think this was ever in doubt. Was it? Is it?


 * And it introduces another complication, as these particular appointments are described here as honorary ranks. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree your comment, and you may have seen that I have gone on to add a link to 5* article which sufficiently explains the UK position, and restored a link there to UK staff car plate.. Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately hasn't been active on English Wikipedia for a year or so, and I speak no German. But they seem to be online in the German Wikipedia, so I'll have a go at contacting them there in English. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hhaekel has replied (apparently their user name has changed to  but this was discussed on German Wikipedia not here). Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Five-star rank, a section I have just initiated. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wehrmacht insignia
If we do reinstate Goering to this article, I suggest that the image at right should be added too. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could Goering have a place here? I think not, completely unhistorical, apart from any thing else. Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious to know what you mean by unhistorical. The historical facts are that he in 1940 he was promoted to the Wehrmacht rank of Reichsmarschall, one grade superior to the five-star rank of Generalfeldmarschall which he already held and to which several others were promoted at the time. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For "Historical" see. In the case of Wehrmacht ranks, the historical facts will be known to you and others. They had nothing to do with the five-star ranks created in the US Army in connection with status relative to the highest military ranks of the allied countries at war with Germany, or the later NATO code for determining equivalence for the purposes of NATO command structure. We are concerned with improving the article. It could be helpful if you will explain what argument you are now attempting to construct to that end before leading further into a blind alley. Qexigator (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The claim that the Wehrmacht ranks had nothing to do with the five-star ranks created in the US Army in connection with status relative to the highest military ranks of the allied countries at war with Germany is quite simply untrue. The allied rank of Field Marshal and the Wehrmacht rank of Generalfeldmarschall corresponded in grade, they were acknowledged as such at the time, and are now. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * please read Field marshal (Germany), as it quite clearly says that Generalfeldmarschall is an OF10/five-star rank, and that Goering was promoted to the superior rank of Reichsmarschall (making Reichsmarschall a six-star rank by default). Read the sources for that article before you debate any further.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 08:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Andrewa (07:03, 8 September ). Noted first, that your comment has not replied to what argument you are now attempting to construct to that end before leading further into a blind alley; and secondly, that it fails to quote and cite any external source for were acknowledged as such at the time, and are now. If you have not made this up, who has? Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To the first question: Please note also that I thought that what argument you are now attempting to construct to that end before leading further into a blind alley was a rhetorical question. If you rephrase it so that it avoids the personal attack, I'll be glad to attempt an answer.
 * To the second question, it was first stated here by I think, and yes I haven't even looked for a reference. Do you think one is needed? This is after all a discussion, not an article, the aim is simply consensus. Would it influence your view if a source for this is cited here? How? Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to StG88 (08:07, 8 September). ...quite clearly says...- ditto Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to both: You and others will know that there was no need for any of the allies at the time to seek to establish equivalence of rank with Wehrmacht or other parts of German military. Is there any contemporary record which shows otherwise? Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. Three questions are asked there. Straight answers, please, and for my part I'll have a look for a contemporary record which shows otherwise, it's a good question. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Equivalent ranks of the enemy
asks ''You and others will know that there was no need for any of the allies at the time to seek to establish equivalence of rank with Wehrmacht or other parts of German military. Is there any contemporary record which shows otherwise?'' and I've undertaken to investigate. It's a good question.

Just for a start, Geneva Convention (1929) states They must be constructed in such a way so that the conditions are similar to those used by the belligerent's own soldiers in base camps and later Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be (my emphasis). Now, officers are of course accorded relatively luxurious (I did say relatively) accommodations, according to their rank. I think that happens in every military, but that's probably too sweeping a claim. It certainly happened in both Allied and Wehrmacht base camps (and surely I don't need a source (-> for that).

I'm sure there are many more examples of why these correspondences within rank mattered, but do we really need to go further? A false generalisation is disproved by a single counter example. Or, can Qexigator rephrase the point to be more specific? Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely the point is whether or not any reliable sources say Goering held six-star rank. You appear to be drawing original research by synthesis by saying he did so. I presume you're claiming a WP:CALC exemption, but this requires "consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". That doesn't appear to be the case. The claim you're making is akin to claiming Prince Philip is a six-star admiral because he's Lord High Admiral, which is higher than all the five-star admirals, but that isn't the case. DrKay (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the point of this section is, was there any need for any of the allies at the time to seek to establish equivalence of rank with Wehrmacht or other parts of German military. Please stay on-topic! But I would value your contribution in the appropriate discussion(s), where it would be very relevant.


 * Or, if your point is that this question can be answered trivially, and we can then move on, that would be great, but you don't seem to have taken a side either way.


 * Not convinced that WP:CALC is appropriate. Cross that bridge if and when we get to it. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of the section was to decide whether to include Goering in the article or not. It has since drifted off-topic. I'm bringing it back on topic. Goering shouldn't go in unless there are sources saying he held six-star rank. DrKay (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DrKay's comment (19:12, 8 September) is spot on: the point is whether or not any reliable sources say Goering held six-star rank, and puts Andrewa's comments on the spot- speculating about effect of Geneva convention is off article topic (but could be relevant elsewhere in connection with the treatment of Göring and others at the time of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal). Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevance is just to the sweeping, and frankly I think ridiculous, claim that you made about comparative enemy ranks. That's the topic of this subsection. The goal is to achieve consensus. I fear that we can't hope to achieve that if such baseless assertions go unchallenged. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the point of the section is if we were to reinstate Goering to this article, we would then consider also adding a particular image. It was added for future reference. Agree it has drifted off-topic, and perhaps I should have tried to pull it back before.


 * The reason I put it in these terms is, I think it's pointless to even discuss this while there is no consensus that for example Rommel's rank of Field Marshal should be included in the five-star rank article. If Rommel and others of his rank (some of whom were still alive in 1944) weren't five-star, then certainly Goering wasn't six, QED.


 * So, the section was just to provide a handy link for myself and others to an image of which I had only just become aware, should it (as I hope) become a useful one to consider. That's all.


 * There's an ongoing is discussion at talk:five-star rank in which Qexigator is already involved, and where DrKay would of course be welcome. And we need to address that first. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We are concerned with improving the article. Same applies to 5* Talk, which also suffers from oddly speculative comments, lacking credible external sources, possibly to provide a handy link of some kind.  Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree strongly except for the last statement possibly..., which doesn't seem terribly helpful, unless I've misinterpreted it. Let us focus on that goal. Again suggest that the current discussion re Rommel etc is the first priority. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that every single time that a "credible external [source]" is presented, someone finds fault with it and claims some reason (tainted by Wikipedia, just an opinion/fringe theory, etc) for it not being a reliable source. No counter-source has ever been presented, just words of spite. It would be much more productive if counter-sources were provided instead of just saying "you're wrong".  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed it being quite that consistent, but agree it's a problem, and this is a case in point of course. You might find my off-wiki (well, it's in my own wiki, but it's not an open wiki, and it's not this wiki) essay how to reveal yourself without really trying amusing, and perhaps even enlightening. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff
At http://www.jcs-group.com/military/rank/superior.html there's some fascinating stuff which explicitly describes the proposals for six-star ranks during WWII.

At http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19441212&id=1SlWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f-QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2014,3934989 there's an article from The Spokesman-Review - Dec 12, 1944 that describes General of the Army as one grade below General of the Armies, now held only by Gen. John Pershing. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Stuff noted, but fascinating?, --Qexigator (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * + The blog item "Superior To Any Five-star General/Admiral" (sourced to Raymond Oliver. Why is the colonel called "kernal"?: The origin of the ranks and rank insignia now used by the United States armed forces. Published by the Office of History, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan AFB. August 1983. Naval Historical Center. Rank: The Story Behind Names of Different Rank) is obviously loose talk: The British, however, had a five star rank (Field Marshal, Fleet Admiral, and Air Marshal). The piece itself explains that there was no such thing as 5* in the US armed forces, let alone any other countries, until after  14 December, 1944. It also pithily states Symbols matter, and so does accuracy about them. It adds According to the Navy messenger, President Roosevelt .. expected... action to provide higher ranks for the Army with a six star General of the Armies and a five star General of the Army. Is there any official record for this? Perhaps something could be constructed on The Navy agreed to drop the six star rank, but not by...Qexigator (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The site you quote doesn't appear to be a blog except in the most general sense, in which sense almost any personal website would be one. The claimed source of this particular page appears to be quite reliable as Wikipedia uses the term, the site itself less so.


 * Disagree that it's obviously loose talk. It's well-written and contains information that belongs in the article if adequately sourced.


 * The early proposal for six star ranks for example: In early January 1944 President Roosevelt startled Admiral Leahy by telling him he was going to be promoted to five stars with the title Admiral of the Fleet. Stunned, Leahy replied that if such a promotion was under consideration the rank ought to be given to each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  A few days later a Navy Captain informed the Army Chief of Personnel that the chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee would be introducing a bill in Congress, prepared by the Navy Department, to provide two new ranks; Admiral of the Navy (six-star rank) and Admiral of the Fleet (five stars).  According to the Navy messenger, President Roosevelt had approved the plan and expected similar action to provide higher ranks for the Army with a six star General of the Armies and a five star General of the Army.


 * The original book (pamphlet really, 21 pages) is available on Amazon and contains a bibliography. It was reprinted in 2008 and is also available for Kindle.  I'm tempted. Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was quoting the site you linked, blog or not. The looseness (on the part of the author quoted at the website) consists in ...The British, however, had a five star rank (Field Marshal, Fleet Admiral, and Air Marshal). That may have been good enough in an environment of information addressed to the author's audience at the "Office of History, Sacramento Air Logistics Center", mentioned at McClellan Air Force Base, or at the "Naval Historical Center but, as you will have seen, it is the author who shows that if they became known as "5*" that necessarily came later, not, as implied, before. If you can find anything in that or any other publication to the contrary, especially anything citing contemporary sources, please let us know. Qexigator (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, understood I think. You seem to be again arguing that, because you disagree with the author, they must therefore be wrong. It's not an easy argument to answer.


 * I'm not sure why you prefer contemporary sources or even how I'd determine whether a source was one. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline that describes and/or prefers them? Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure? Really? An encyclopedic article reporting information of this kind should have a modicum of respect for historical accuracy. Contemporary: such as official records, not what a later writer happens to have made up to suit his or his publisher's idiosyncrasy or a target market. For instance, the 6* article quotes US Congressional records and two contemporary newspaper reports. The principle is not difficult, compliance may be. You are in error saying that I have been and am again arguing that, because you disagree with the author, they must therefore be wrong. Indulging in such misrepresentation is likely to terminate further discussion. Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's all very well, but is this principle of yours supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline? That was my question, and this doesn't appear to be what you previously called a straight answer to it.


 * I'm not attempting misrepresentation. I'll leave it to others to decide whether I've accurately analysed your argument on these two occasions. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So far as I am concerned that is a further pointless misrepresentation, inadvertent or not: the principle is not "mine", and the discussion is terminated. But proceed if so inclined to report further relevant and useful contemporary sources if you find them. Qexigator (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The charge of misrepresentation is I think a behavioural issue, so if it is pursued at all the next step is on our user talk pages, not here.


 * As you say relevant discussions do belong here. But much of this discussion above was not relevant.


 * I am still waiting for a straight answer as to what regards as contemporary records and why they prefer them. The example US Congressional records and two contemporary newspaper reports helps a little but not much. Surely a modern writer would count as much as these contemporary newspaper reports? That's what the guideline Identifying reliable sources suggests to me. The word contemporary does not currently  appear in that guideline at all.


 * If anyone thinks that the term contemporary is relevant here, it might be worth raising this at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Contemporary" as in "written at the time of the subject" is what he prefers, however, Wikipedia doesn't have a preference for contemporary vs modern sources. According to WP:BURDEN, the person wishing to introduce new information must provide a reliable source, but once a reliable source is provided, you better have strong evidence if you want to counter it. So I think User:Qexigator should provide a counter-source if he wants to debate against User:Andrewa's reliable sources.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 04:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to StG88 (04:20, 13 September): That is fair comment from one point of view, and to be considered in context. On the matters being discussed on this page, my previous comments stand. WPs offer guidance about editing on this immense open access website, allowing for the fact that contributors are not acting professionally as specialists or writers or specifically encyclopedia producers as such.  Some may be any of those things professionally outside Wikipedia, but as contributors here all (in good faith) are amateurs, and obviously some more skilled or knowledgeable in particular aspects of a given topic or diligent than others (as in any other spare-time activity).  Thus, contributors are expected to apply WP guidance to the best of their ability, given whatever editorial and other skill and judgment they bring to the work. In point of "evidence", let the facts already mentioned speak for themselves.  I see no good reason for further "debate" on my part. Qexigator (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, however I don't see how that at all pertains to what you're responding to. There was nowhere I mentioned "specialists or writers" editing Wikipedia and the weight of their contributions. I simply said that you should provide sources to counter sources instead of just saying "well that's just wrong/not reliable" as you've done repeatedly. When you say "facts already mentioned", these "facts" were never supported by any source whatsoever, so I can only see them speaking against themselves.
 * Just one example is your saying that five-star rank never existed before 14 December 1944. The British already had five-star ranks, whether the term already existed or not. Saying that those ranks became five-star ranks just because the Americans coined the term is equivalent to saying that dinosaurs weren't dinosaurs until someone coined the word "dinosaur". Your arguments mean nothing without something to back them up.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 03:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * StG88's remarks (03:41, 14 September), while well meant, show that he has not understood what I have been saying. My previous comments stand, and there is no good reason for further "debate" on the part of... Qexigator (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * These remarks appear to me to show complete understanding of what you said... despite your remarks being rather convoluted. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (Good to see you lads are still enjoying yourselves, and are managing perfectly well without me. Thanks for the interesting reading-matter. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC))

Dubious
Article currently reads in part A six-star rank is a proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars.

There are two problems with that statement. One is that such ranks have been awarded, just not in the USA. The other is that not one of these overseas ranks has had an insignia of six stars.

Apart from the six-star ranks proposed for Macarthur and Nimitz but not awarded, probably the two most notable six-star ranks are Generalissimus of the Soviet Union, granted to Joseph Stalin in 1945 (according to our article ) but he refused it, and Reichsmarschall, awarded to Hermann Göring at the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony. Both of these ranks are immediately superior to an acknowledged five-star rank, Marshal of the Soviet Union and Field marshal respectively.

The insignia in both cases are known. Neither has six stars.

The problem again seems to be that, while it's now common to refer to senior ranks on the level of Field marshal, Marshal of the Soviet Union, Admiral of the fleet (Australia) and many, many more as five-star ranks, following the US tradition, the insignia in many if not most other countries, even among NATO members where the five-star status is officially recognised, have not followed this pattern.

So, it's simply not in general true that a five-star rank has a five-star insignia, nor that a six-star rank has a six-star insignia. This seems to confuse people. I'm not sure why.

But it's a shame that our article currently repeats this common misinformation. May I change it?

Or alternatively, there are a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * May I change it? - Change what to what? i.e. Given the volume of past (and current!) discussion, being explicit would seem to me to be ... "a good idea". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively, there are a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix. - WARNING! Attempt at humour following. - Actually, independent of this page, I completely agree that "there are a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix"!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The stringing again seems a little strange. See WP:THREAD. What I meant is that, while we don't cite Wikipedia articles, it's a good idea for them not to contradict each other. (-> Other articles state that, for example, even in Australia admiral of the fleet is a five-star rank. So while I can't cite that as a source, I'm happy to cite it as evidence that we have some sort of problem. But logically, the problem could be with these other articles.


 * I don't think so in this case. I think that the Australian rank of Admiral of the Fleet is a five-star rank, and hope that we don't need to discuss that any further. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Change what to what? i.e. Given the volume of past (and current!) discussion, being explicit would seem to me to be ... "a good idea". Agree. But given the volume of past (and current!) discussion, I'm proceeding cautiously.


 * I've raised two problems with the current lead. Do you agree that they are problems, as stated? I thought that to seek consensus on this as a first step was also a good idea.


 * But I won't take agreement as a blank cheque to just change it to whatever suits me. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least, "designated with an insignia of six stars" should be removed, because, like any rank, it is not necessarily designated by a specific insignia throughout the world.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 14:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The statement as it stands is so blatantly false that I wondered what I was missing. Perhaps I'm not missing anything on that particular point. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At the very least- agreed. Would we then have to restate the first sentence something like:
 * "A six-star rank is a phrase sometimes used to denote an actual or proposed military grade above the grade designated in the U.S. as a "five-star" rank. It was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank named "General of the Armies of the United States." ?
 * But is either the first or second of those sentences sufficiently supported in the rest of the article? Qexigator (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The first is unsatisfactory for another reason. This article is not about a phrase. It is about a rank.


 * We have of course had endless discussions about whether this particular rank exists or has ever existed. Let us not repeat these. Even if this article is about a non-existent rank, it is still about the rank, not about the phrase. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Insignia
I believe there is consensus above that a six-star rank is not necessarily represented by a six-star insignia, and that the statement that it is should be removed. I therefore propose the following specific change (only):

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars. (current)

to

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade superior to a five-star rank. (proposed)

Please note that this does not imply whether or not six-star is the only such rank. It doesn't say the proposed special grade.

Nor does it make any other change. It doesn't say immediately superior to. It doesn't change grade to rank or remove proposed. It doesn't change the topic from the rank or grade to the phrase.

It makes only the change to which we seem agreed. Or that is the intention. It does add the statement that the grade is superior to five-star, and I would have liked to avoid even that, but failed to find a suitable phrasing. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on proposed rewording: A six-star rank is a proposed special grade superior to a five-star rank. + link reading: "A five-star rank is a very senior military rank, particularly the United States rank of a general or admiral whose insignia is five stars [1] and corresponding ranks in other militaries." [1]=Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2nd Edition, 1989. "five" ... "five-star adj., ... (b) U.S., applied to a general or admiral whose badge of rank includes five stars;"

If those were run together, and the linked content made explicit, it would read:
 * "A six-star rank is a proposed special grade superior to a senior military rank, particularly the United States rank of a general or admiral whose insignia is five-stars and corresponding ranks in other militaries."

If that statement is correct, let it stand as the proposal. If not, the unconflated version doesn't work. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am at least as happy with that wording. It removes the current falsehood and also begins to address the US-centricity. In both senses it would be progress. Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * But is it compatible with the fact of any actual 5+star rank in other countries, such as French Marechal, 7-star? Are we saying six-star rank applies only, anywhere, ever, to a proposed special grade? If so, the only country so far identified as having a proposed 5+star grade is USA. Can you suggest further rewording? Qexigator (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can again suggest that you read WP:THREAD. I think you are replying to me, but the indenting makes it appear that you are replying to yourself.


 * Agree that there's another problem there. It seems to me that Goering was promoted to a six-star rank on 19 July 1940, and that a six-star rank was created for Stalin on June 27 1945 but he refused it. Both of these were more than proposals, they both appear as official decisions in the official papers of the time although only one of these ranks was ever received, and there's some similarity between the Stalin episode and the second Macarthur episode. And the lowest grade of Wonsu currently held in North Korea also appears to be a six star rank.


 * France is even more complicated.


 * But let's fix one problem at a time, otherwise we'll just keep going around in circles. I don't have sources at hand for any of what I've just said.


 * We seem to have consensus that the insignia statement is just plain wrong. Why not fix it? Why not do it now? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(Please indent this as you see fit.) Agreed, it should be fixed: will you do it? Would this be acceptable (second sentence added for context): "A six-star rank is a proposed or actual military grade, so called as being superior to a senior military rank which is or has been designated as a "five-star" rank in the United State military system with an insignia of five-stars, and corresponding ranks in other countries. It was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank named "General of the Armies of the United States"." ? Qexigator (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Zero indenting, as here, is always acceptable, although not very helpful. It means that if you're replying to anything, as here, then readers need to use other means to work that out. And I don't think I should do the indenting for you, for several reasons. The convention is not all that complicated, is it? What is the problem?


 * I'm happy to do the fix, but I don't think that your latest wording is nearly as good as your first attempt, which I still support and would be happy to put into the article.


 * Your latest attempt introduces new issues. Let's just fix what we've already agreed needs fixing. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Better said thus?:
 * A six-star rank is a proposed military grade so called as being superior to a rank designated in the United States military system as a rank with an insignia of five-stars ("five-star rank"), and corresponding superior ranks in other countries.

Qexigator (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So called is not encyclopedic, while a rank designated in the United States military system as a rank with an insignia of five-stars ("five-star rank") is needlessly wordy for the lead sentence.


 * I'm happy to discuss all these other issues, but why can't we fix what we've already agreed needs fixing, using the wording we have already agreed is a substantial improvement. There is still a blatant falsehood in the lead. It should be fixed. Now. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So called is not encyclopedic: not in this case. ...while a rank designated in the United States military system as a rank with an insignia of five-stars ("five-star rank") is needlessly wordy for the lead sentence'': not in this case. What is stopping you fixing what you call blatant falsehood? Qexigator (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. And as for what is stopping me, I'm probably being over cautious, but I want to be sure we still have consensus. See below, and please indicate your (hopefully) support. Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, my caution seems vindicated. Andrewa (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The current proposal
I believe there is consensus above that a six-star rank is not necessarily represented by a six-star insignia, and that the statement that it is should be removed. I therefore propose the following specific change (only):

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars. (current)

to

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade superior to a senior military rank, particularly the United States rank of a general or admiral whose insignia is five-stars and corresponding ranks in other militaries. (proposed by Qexigator)

Is there any problem with this? None has been raised so far. It's not perfect I agree, but the discussion above does nothing to improve on it. It is purely about bundling other, more controversial changes together with this one.

Let's fix what is agreed. Andrewa (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of that, this is now proposed: ""A six-star rank is a proposed or actual military grade, so called as being superior to a senior military rank which is or has been designated as a "five-star" rank in the United States military system with an insignia of five-stars, and corresponding ranks in other countries." -- unless the same can be expressed in better wording. Qexigator (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Two things puzzle me about this last post.


 * Firstly, you still make no attempt to use the thread convention. It would be very helpful to other readers, as I said above. That's why we have it. At least the zero indenting you now use is not actively confusing to the reader, unlike your seemingly random indenting of past posts, which is why I called it acceptable, and I guess that's progress. But in giving no information at all it still makes it hard to follow the discussion. You invited me above to restring one of your comments, but I don't think that's a good precedent at all. What is the problem with us both using the convention?


 * Secondly and more important, I was assuming that this section could be used to discuss the specific proposal of yours that I supported. I thought that was clear. Reviving a subsequent proposal of yours which I have already opposed isn't any sort of progress at all.


 * I'm tempted to guess whether or not you would now oppose that proposal, but for clarity, could you please "vote" in the informal poll below. See Talk:Rainham railway station (London) if you are unsure about how a poll works, and try to follow the Wikipedia conventions and practices for such discussions. They work surprisingly well. Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Poll
Should we modify the current lead to read instead A six-star rank is a proposed special grade superior to a senior military rank, particularly the United States rank of a general or admiral whose insignia is  five-stars and corresponding ranks in other militaries.?

Please indicate below whether you Support or Oppose this proposal. Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. We have consensus above that this is an improvement, that the change is significant, and that this proposed change would solve a particular problem. While consensus on other changes will hopefully come in time, there is no reason to wait for this to occur. Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: But could support if "not actual" inserted to read  A six-star rank is a proposed, not actual, special grade superior to a senior military rank, particularly the United States rank of a general or admiral whose insignia is five-stars and corresponding ranks in other militaries. For instance, 20c.: UK/Australian Field-Marshal, actual rank but of starless insignia; French Marechal, actual with seven-star insignia.Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So, what this "vote" means is that you will agree to fix the problem as proposed, but only if you get to put in these extra words as well, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No: I will not be making the change, and in my opinion the one you have nominated above is not sufficient for me to vote in its support. But I would support the same words if "not actual" were inserted as above. Also, I would like to see the last word in the sentence to be "countries" not "militaries". Qexigator (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Others please note, this appears to me to be replying to my comment immediately above dated 01:32, 1 September. If so the stringing is (still) nonstandard, and part of the answer nonsensical... nobody was suggesting that Qexigator should make the change, and it appears to me that while the answer starts out No, the text that follows that means Yes. Not quite sure how best to handle this... Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply to Andrewa 10:13... you (that is Qexigator, the commenter immediately above, at 22:42 31 August) will agree to fix the problem as proposed. No, Qexigator does not agree to do that. And no, the text which followed cannot possibly mean Yes to anything so far proposed. Try not to tie yourself or others in bits of string. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit that my reply 01:32, 1 September was ambiguous... I meant you will agree to us fixing the problem as proposed, and I'm quite happy to do the fix, as I already said 10:13, 1 September. I'm not trying to tie anybody in knots, but funnily enough, I often think that this is what you are trying to do to me, with nonsensical replies and nonstandard stringing. See how to reveal yourself without really trying. Perhaps this is becoming a behavioural issue, and should go to user talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support because I like the wording better than other proposals.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 04:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure
I have dropped two heads-ups  on the talk pages of two other contributors who have participated in previous discussion. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to close
The opening sentence of the article was tagged for discussion on 24 August. It has now been discussed, and it is time to close and remove the tag. No improved wording has been agreed, and given the content of the present version of the article, the present wording suffices. Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "designated with an insignia of six stars" needs to be removed first, because this is a false statement.  ミーラー強斗武  (StG88ぬ会話) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)