Talk:United States Army officer rank insignia

What are these insignia?
As the copyright templates for these images are deprecated I was trying to find a suitable replacement tag. My problem is I don't know what these insignia images are of and thus can't find their source. They are similar in appearance to Shoulder Marks as shown in http://www.army.mil/symbols/Downloads/r670_1.pdf (page 204). Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Update - I also found the insignia at http://www.army.mil/symbols/Downloads/Ranks.pdf which is a 5 megabyte file but again does not have the exact images that are being shown here. The insignia themselves seem correct (and are public domain) but it's still not clear what the images on the article page are of. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They're being shown on the green shoulder tabs used with the Class A and Class B uniforms. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source/citation for this? In the first PDF I noted above  there  is no mention of "shoulder tabs."  There are "shoulder marks" which are black - see section 28–8. "Other grade insignia / a. Shoulder marks. (1) Officers. Shoulder marks for officers are black with a 1⁄8-inch yellow stripe below the embroidered grade insignia (see fig 28–64)." These images are not shoulder marks as they don't have quite the right shape, don't have the yellow stripe, and are not black.  There is also "Figure 28–67. Shoulder boards" but that's the wrong shape.  This looks close "Figure 28–137. Wear of combat leaders identification on shoulder loops" though it's about a green cloth loop that would have the insignia (again a feature not visible on the wikipedia images).


 * I also just realized when jumping from tab to tab in the browser that the wiki images jump around. The implication is they were scanned and cropped from printed material. That tells us nothing about the source/copyright but I had been thinking someone just photoshopped these up for wikipedia.


 * I'd propose removing these images and replacing them with images from http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html and believe someone is already doing that. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Class A's and B's are covered under chapters 15 and 16 and the rank insignia thereof in sections 28-5 and 28-6. See particularly Figures 28-32 and 28-46, although they cut off the top of the shoulder loop above the button. Caerwine Caer’s whines  23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I found http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=65&sid=1271 which has the same images and calls them Officers Class A shoulder rank insignia. It's not clear who took the images from who though the uniforminsignia files are dated Oct. 24, 2004 and they showed up on Wikipedia in 2005. The files are bit-for-bit identical except the ones on Wikipedia each have two bytes appended to the end. I don't know if these bytes are something Wikipedia appends during upload. The uniforminsignia site also has shoulder marks. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm - Let me back up a little - I have two goals in mind which I believe will help improve this article
 * Are the images shown in the article unambiguously accurate? It seems after discussion and research that the article images are supposed to be of shoulder loops for which, as Caerwine noted, there's Figure 28–32 (page 212 of the PDF ) and Figure 28–46 (page 217 of the PDF). I believe that the images shown in the article are not accurate as
 * The article images show a flat bottom while the PDF shows that they bottom is angled so that the loop will fit on a human shoulder.
 * The article images have a pronounced slope on the left/right sides while the PDF loops slope much less.
 * The article images have a pointed top with the point starting at or just below the level of the button. The PDF shows the sides of the loop continuing straight past the button and does not show how the top is shaped. For all we know, it could be a straight or angled cut that fits flat under the edge of the collar.
 * I also looked for photos of these loops on http://www.army.mil/institution/leaders/
 * Photos and  - The top is under the collar and if it's pointed like what's in the images the point starts above the level of the button. It's not clear from this picture but it seems the sides are more straight and not angled out.
 * Photo - Here the sides look straight.
 * From this image  shows that the sides appear pretty straight. It’s a group of people in uniform.
 * The PDF does not seem to describe the dimensions of officer’s shoulder loops. Enlisted personal shoulder loops are described on page 125 as “The loop is 21⁄2 inches wide at the outside shoulder edge, 11⁄2 inches wide at the inside collar edge, and piped all around with gold-colored nylon or rayon cord edge braid, 1⁄8 inch wide.” You can see pictures of these at and  where you can see they are worn outside the collar, have rounded tops, clearly sloped sides, and gold braiding on the outer edges.
 * Can the actual images being used in the article be traced back to a source that gives the Wikipedia the rights to use them?
 * I have determined that the images came from http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=65&sid=1271
 * The Wikipedia files are byte-for-byte identical to these files except on Wikipedia two bytes that seem to be a sequence counter.
 * The files on that site are dated Oct. 24, 2004 and were uploaded to Wikipedia in April 2005. I recognize that file dates can be modified to give the appearance that they pre-dated Wikipedia though I will trust Wikipedia's upload log.
 * At the bottom of the page is a copyright statement "Copyright © 2000-2006 WORLD INSIGNIA COLLECTORS UNION / The information on this page may not be reproduced, republished or mirrored on another webpage or website without written permission from the editors."
 * I have looked fairly hard for another source of these images, particularly on .mil sites without success.
 * I do not want to get into "images of military insignia can't be copyrighted" as the existing article images seem to be of artistic renditions of shoulder loops containing insignia and also that no one has been able to cite, chapter and verse, a verifiable source for the claim that "images of military insignia can't be copyrighted."
 * With these points in mind I believe the images on Wikipedia should be deleted and replaced with known public domain images from http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

you wrote: Can you provide a source/citation for this? In the first PDF I noted above there  is no mention of "shoulder tabs." There are "shoulder marks" which are black - see section 28–8. "Other grade insignia / a. Shoulder marks. (1) Officers. Shoulder marks for officers are black with a 1⁄8-inch yellow stripe below the embroidered grade insignia (see fig 28–64)." These images are not shoulder marks as they don't have quite the right shape, don't have the yellow stripe, and are not black. There is also "Figure 28–67. Shoulder boards" but that's the wrong shape. This looks close "Figure 28–137. Wear of combat leaders identification on shoulder loops" though it's about a green cloth loop that would have the insignia (again a feature not visible on the wikipedia images).

The Army uses the term "shoulder marks" for the slip-on devices that are generically, and more often other places, called shoulder slides (they slide over the shoulder straps) or slip-ons, or sometimes tabs. Why the Army uses the term is unknown. "Marks" doesn't really seem descriptive or appropriate. Likewise, the Army calls its dress blue uniform passants "shoulder boards" for some reason, as well. In any other context, shoulder boards are the hard, pointed platforms with a button on top as worn by Navy officers on their white uniforms, and Air Force officers on the mess dress jacket. The Army doesn't have shoulder boards, except in their own uniform guides. Also, while discussing accuracy, the shoulder "marks", despite their description, were not really black. If you have actually seen them, up close in good light, you'd see they were really very dark green. I think the new ones are the same strange brownish-green color as the coats and hats of the "pinks and greens" uniform. I assumed that is what is the color intended in the depiction here of the shoulder straps (they aren't loops, FGS, loops are for trench coats-- has anyone who writes the Army's uniform manuals ever actually SEEN an Army uniform? - Venqax (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

General of the Armies insignia (#2)
The graphic shows the insignia worn by Pershing as General of the Armies as 4 silver stars-- the same as General-- but the text says he wore 4 gold stars. I question the accuracy of the text, and think the graph is correct. I think the "4 gold stars" is a myth originating with the famous equestrian portrait of him, painted with gold stars, which were simply the product of the artist's interpretation or ignorance. Every historical source seems to agree that Pershing as General of the Armies continued to wear the same 4 silver stars insignia that he wore as a General. Nothing contemporary I have seen says he ever wore gold stars. And, in context, it wouldn't even have made sense for him to, since silver outranks gold in army officers' insignia-- as a whole section of this very article explains. Also, he was the only general officer in the Army at the time to rank above 2 stars, so it's not like he wouldn't stand out with 4. - Venqax (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of displaying ranks
I am curious as to why the order shown for the various ranks is being used, when shown from left to right. Military ranks are progressive; with very few exceptions, one doesn't get to a higher rank without progressing through each of the lower ones first. Every general officer begins as a 2LT, every admiral begins as an ensign, every command sergeant major begins as a private or specialist. Pay grades are even numbered for easy reference, from "O-1" (2LT) through "O-10" (GEN). See Uniformed services pay grades of the United States. Furthermore, the number of members of each rank decreases as rank increases, such that in, for example, a typical US Army brigade combat team, which might contain a total of 4,400 service members, it would typically contain 3,500 enlisted personnel (E-1 and E-2), 600 NCOs (E-4 through E-9), 90 second lieutenants (O-1), 45 first lieutenants (O-2), twenty captains (O-3), ten majors (O-4), three lieutenant colonels (O-5), and one colonel (O-6). So if one were ordering by quantity, ascending would be the sensible order. An argument could be made for ordering a list from highest to lowest in some hierarchies, such as from the president to vice president to Speaker of the House of Representatives in the US political system, but this is quite different since there is not a linear progression from say, a city council member to the state assembly to the state senate to the House of Representatives to the Senate to the White House. Very often one only serves in one of those political offices, and one arrives in that office by election. An argument could also be made for ordering a list from highest to lowest when arranged vertically, as this matches the standard hierarchical structure with greatest power at the top and least at the bottom. Even so, this is not uniformly done (no pun intended); for example, the standard book "The Encyclopedia of United States Army Insignia and Uniforms" arranges them vertically from lowest to highest rank. But few show rankings descending from left to right. That convention produces some confusing explanations such as found here where it states "The chart below shows the current enlisted rank insignia of the United States Army, with seniority, and pay grade, increasing from right to left" (emphasis added). It is very uncommon in any language which is read from left to right to describe or depict anything "increasing from right to left". From analog speedometers on vehicles to numbered sets in mathematics, to footnotes in publishing, the invariable order is from the smallest on the left to largest on the right, especially when smaller units are contained within larger ones. The argument from precedent here on WP is not a compelling one, given how relatively short of a time WP has existed, and that its conventions are arrived at by amateur editors through discussion. Instead, I would lean on what print encyclopedias have been doing for decades, if not centuries. The Encyclopaedia Britannica displays the order of ranks progressively, from lowest to highest, as can be seen here in their article titled "Colonel": https://www.britannica.com/topic/colonel. I propose that we engage in a discussion as to whether or not to bring WP into accord with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and other illustrated encyclopedia which depict ranks in ascending order, from left to right. Bricology (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)