Talk:Großadmiral

Citation needed

There is currently [1] a statement in the lede that this rank is comparable to NATO rank codes OF10 [citation needed], and to the five-star rank in anglophone armed forces.

In fact the whole statement should probably be labelled citation needed. Five-star rank is NATO OF10, so to state that this rank is OF10 implies by WP:CALC that it's five-star.

(Please note that the following does contain original research, and that this is allowed on talk pages, but not in articles... This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.[2])

The overall rank structure is currently [3] described in Uniforms and insignia of the Kriegsmarine, and appears to almost exactly parallel the system of the British Navy, but with one additional rank, Großadmiral, added at the top. This article also states Kriegsmarine styles of uniform and insignia had many features in common with those of other European navies, all derived from the British Royal Navy of the 19th century. That doesn't directly relate to rank, but should raise suspicions when we are then told, without a citation, that essentially all ranks in the Kreigsmarine above Captain (naval) are one rank junior to the apparently equivalent rank in the Royal Navy.

This obviously relates to the can of worms surrounding six-star rank which I am heavily involved in investigating at the moment, and affects many other articles. Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My chief problem with the OF-10 claim, or any reference to the NATO grades is that the Kriegsmarine - the last to use Grossadmiral was defunct before NATO was created. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It would IMO be valid if and only if reliable sources use the NATO codes to describe these ranks. In that the NATO codes describe a grade rather than a specific rank (such as Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral, for example) they could be useful, and perhaps sources use them for this purpose, and if they do then it's not obvious what other terms we could use in their place when reporting the information supplied by these sources. But if they don't then we shouldn't either.

My main problem is that it may seriously inaccurate. This doubt is a direct consequence of it being unsourced. That's one reason we have verifiability as one of our three core content policies.

It's even possible that this is a six star rank, which is what brought me here. The term five star rank is well established in the literature as applying to the Wehrmacht rank of Generalfeldmarschall.

If it is inaccurate, then it's part of a can of worms regarding high ranks which seems to affect many articles and is proving very hard to deal with. For example our The field marshal article currently contains a footnote The equivalent of a Generalfeldmarschall in the German navy was Großadmiral (grand admiral). The rank of Generalfeldmarschall was abolished after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945. [4]

That would settle the doubt here very nicely indeed if it were itself sourced. But it's not, and I'm afraid that is very much the pattern with this and related issues, which is why I and others have come to regard it as a can of worms. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)