Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NOTE for the unfamiliar

As another editor has noted, for some reason this topic seems to have evoked voluminous and strong statements of opinion.

ANY and ALL editors wishing to express an opinion here are informed / advised / warned that it is more than likely that their opinion has been expressed before, at LEAST twice, and also, that responses to that opinion have been expressed, at LEAST four times.

In other words: New editors are STRONGLY advised to read the talk page archives before editing either the talk page, or the article.

( Added by Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

"Citation needed" for something that DIDN'T happen??? Please explain.

I'm somewhat perplexed by User:DrKay's edit of 23 August 2014 where he has placed a tag:

despite there being no mention of this in Congress, Senate or US Army documentation to support the claim.

Could someone please explain to me:

• Why is a citation needed for something that DIDN'T happen?
• How is it possible to provide a citation for something that doesn't exist?

I look forward to reading a well reasoned explanation of why this tag should remain.

Should no such explanation be forthcoming, I propose the tag be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. You need a citation that says there is no documentation, otherwise it's just as valid as saying there is documentation, as how can you possibly know either way if no source says otherwise? DrKay (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"You need a citation that says there is no documentation" - I repeat: How is it possible to provide a citation for something that doesn't exist? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I had mistakenly assumed that some citation would be forthcoming, but as this has not happened, and it seems is not going to happen, the remark:

despite there being no mention of this in Congress, Senate or US Army documentation to support the claim

is an unfounded speculation or surmise. In another publication a writer might say that the keeper of the Congressional records has officially confirmed..., but as I understand it that sort of thing is not acceptable here: is it SYN or OR or some other WP transgression? So, surely, the words quoted are under decree nisi: to be removed unless citation produced in the near future? Qexigator (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"is an unfounded speculation or surmise." - Nonsense. Please explain:

i) how a fact can simultaneously be both a fact and "unfounded speculation or surmise"

ii) the basis and evidence for your assertion that this fact is "unfounded speculation or surmise"

I await enlightenment. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR if a Wikipedian just added that without a citation, but neither policy applies to reliable sources. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and so devoid of source it amounts to unfounded speculation or surmise, and therefore removable. Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

+...but, as others have implied or stated, 6* insignia was not officially proposed for Washington's upgrade. If an undoubted external source is also missing in MacArthur's case, then (per StG88 22:35, 16 September above) is there anything left to support the words in the first sentence about an insignia of six stars ever having been proposed for the rank? Qexigator (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qexigator: You've misunderstood both of my last two posts. The first (22:31 16 Sept) was me correcting you on your misbelief that sources can violate the Wikipedia policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which they can't as only editors of Wikipedia can violate those policies.

My second post (22:35 16 Sept) is a demand that the statement "designated with an insignia of six stars" be removed because it is a false statement, as not all six-star rank insignia have/would have an insignia with six stars. The same goes for one-star through five-star rank. Please tell me if you can't comprehend the fact that a one-star general insignia doesn't have to have one star (or any stars). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to StG88 (00:45, 17 September). Please note that is not too difficult to see that my comment neither stated nor implied a belief that sources can violate the Wikipedia policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to the "demand" (your word) in your second post, maybe you could try taking into account that there are other points of view than your own. Perhaps you have not yet become aware that editors here have for long been struggling with how to let words be used in ways that fit the known facts as they see them. This is in part a problem of semantics, sometimes tending to pedantry when not guided by common sense. Meantime, I note that your reply has not addressed the point that If an undoubted external source is also missing in MacArthur's case there seems to be nothing left to support the words in the first sentence about an insignia of six stars ever having been proposed for the rank). On the point whether the fact that a one-star general insignia doesn't have to have one star (or any stars, in the US system, the name or adjective "n*-rank" and the number of insignia stars are mutually determined. Qexigator (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider merger?

A proposal for merger into General of the Armies, made in October 2013, closed in July 2014 (Archive 5[1]). After expansion and contraction of the article, and in view of the course of the discussion, has the time come for this to be re-considered? Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No.

For the same reasons that were stated then, viz: "Six-star rank" and "General of the Armies" are two different things that MAY possibly have some overlap, but both have their own characteristics which are not shared by the other. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, Pdfpdf (12:38, 17 September), but, given that the only connection with 6* rank in the only two cases mentioned in the article, namely, MacArthur and Washington, is with reference to proposed or actual promotion to General of the Armies, can you say which particular bits of information in this article you consider could not equally well be in General of the Armies? Qexigator (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with User:Pdfpdf for once. The only reason this article only talks about Washington and MacArthur is that everything else was removed. Pershing is worth mentioning for General of the Armies. Admiral of the Navy (United States) is on par with General of the Armies, and both Dewey and Nimitz should be mentioned here. Six-star ranks from other countries should be included, but unfortunately the definition of "six-star rank" is disputed (six-star rank can't exist outside the US or NATO, seriously? Or that it has to have an insignia of six stars to be a six-star rank). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Our bottom line is reader experience.

At the risk of repeating what has been said several times already, the non-specialist reader will come here looking for information concerning the rank immediately above five-star in any armed force that has had both five-star ranks and ranks superior to these five-star ranks. That there are several such ranks previously in the article that have now been removed is sad and negative progress.

But we'll get there. The information is is still there in the article history, and will in time I hope be reinstated.

So far as reinstating the non-NATO ranks goes, the first thing is to establish that non-NATO countries have had five-star ranks. That discussion is taking place elsewhere, and is my priority for the moment. Andrewa (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Additions

The present version is an improvement,[2] and will be a good place to start from if any editors volunteer to make such additions as StG88 (03:46, 18 September) proposes, at least in respect of:

• Pershing is worth mentioning for General of the Armies.
• Admiral of the Navy (United States) is on par... and both Dewey and Nimitz should be mentioned.

Those seem less contentious than Six-star ranks from other countries, upon which agreement seems further off. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There have IMO been better versions in the past. But happy to start from that one if it pleases you.

Are there any objections to adding Pershing, Dewey and Nimitz? Andrewa (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support adding Pershing, Dewey, and Nimitz on these grounds (in case someone !opposes): Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies during his lifetime, unlike Washington or MacArthur; the Navy has explicitly said that Admiral of the Navy out-ranks the five-star Fleet Admiral, which makes it a six-star rank; Dewey was promoted to Admiral of the Navy; Nimitz was considered for promotion to Admiral of the Navy (like MacArthur and General of the Armies). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Try this?

Restructure the article thus:

• First paragraph: A six-star rank is a proposed special grade immediately superior to a five-star rank. It was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank named "General of the Armies of the United States". After the American ranks of General of the Army and Fleet Admiral had been established in the 1940s, proposals were made for promoting one of the generals to the superior rank of General of the Armies, while reservng John J. Pershing's seniority as General of the Armies, and promoting one of the admirals to the superior rank of Admiral of the Navy.
• Put heading "US Army" over text about MacArthur and Washington, leaving out opening words (merged to lead above), to read: On January 21, 1955, the US Senate considered a joint resolution "To authorize the appointment of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur as "General of the Armies of the United States". ...
• Under new heading "US Navy" insert: The Department of the Navy specified that the new Fleet Admiral rank was to be junior to the rank of Admiral of the Navy, which had been held uniquely by George Dewey (died 1917). The Navy Department's proposal, when preparing the invasion of Japan, for promoting Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz to Admiral of the Navy lapsed after the Japanese surrender.

Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the following text

The following text has no comment upon or references to six start rank and should be removed:

On 21 January, 1955, the US Senate considered a joint resolution "To authorize the appointment of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur as "General of the Armies of the United States". The resolution stated that this was "in recognition of the great services to his country" he had rendered, and that "the President is hereby authorized to appoint General of the Army Douglas MacArthur to the office of General of the Armies of the United States (which office is hereby revived for this purpose), such appointment to take effect as of the seventy-fifth anniversary of his birth, January 26, 1955." The proposal was shelved and never took effect.

The Department of the Navy specified that the new Fleet Admiral rank was to be junior to the rank of Admiral of the Navy, which had been held uniquely by George Dewey (died 1917). The Navy Department's proposal, when preparing the invasion of Japan, for promoting Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz to Admiral of the Navy lapsed after the Japanese surrender.

To leave it in misleads the reader into thinking that George Dewey held six star rank and that Douglas MacArthur just missed out on the honour. This has been racked over time and again and no one has been able to come up with a shred of evidence that either man held or was in line to hold six star rank either according to statute or by common repute. If editors want an article on the Highest US military ranks then either the page as it stands can be moved or a new article could be created and the erroneous material above removed from here. 02:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC) A typo mean that my sig failed to work correctly. Greenshed (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On MacArthur, all three references at the end of the paragraph call it a six-star rank. See the quotes in the footnotes. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The six-star rank information should still be in the article content (as well as the footnotes or references). Greenshed (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be rewritten anyway, considering that it focuses not only on just the US, but just the US Army. The last major rewrite was unilaterally reverted by a single editor. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This article, like all others, should focus on the topic which it claims to address. If the only reliable sources concerning the so-called "six star rank" are about the US Army then that's all that goes in here. See the core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Greenshed (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greenshed: There were reliable, inline citations added for the North Korean rank of Wonsu being a six-star rank, yet it was unilaterally removed along with every other addition beyond what is here now. WP:V has little to do with the current state of the article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did not remove the material on Wonsu. As there was so much material in this article in the past that was not backed by citations to reliable sources which were actually about six star rank it is possible that Wonsu stuff got caught in the crossfire. Perhaps you could list the source here. If it's reliable, actually is about six star rank and is not used in a misleading way then I as far as I can see I would support the inclusion of the material. As to your more general point about the current state of the article not being verifiable then if you believe that some parts of the the article are not verifiable then I suggest that you remove them. As those of us who have had some involvement with this article in the past know it has proved to be something of a battleground. I suggest the best way to proceed is to make sure that everything is properly cited and then while there may be debates about the interpretation of the source at least we'll be engaged in a constructive activity rather than going through a cycle of adding and deleting material. Greenshed (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to see how Chasu in the enormous Military of North Korea can be other than a five star rank. But that would make Wonsu six stars and Dae Wonsu seven stars, logically, hence the verbal gymnastics in those articles to avoid calling Chasu a rank at all. But Wikipedia is not to blame for this... the problem is, the overwhelming majority of the online sources we regard as reliable follow the official US military (non) position that there never have been or ever will be ranks superior to OF-10 (US O-11), George Washington (possibly) excepted. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

John J. Pershing

The General of the Armies article has a reference to John J. Pershing who wore four gold stars. The article also states "Public Law 94-479, which codified the rank of General of the Armies of the United States, did not create a separate rank from Pershing's but rather simply clarified that, while Washington and Pershing held the same rank, Washington was to be considered senior although having obtained the rank at a later date."

Doing a little digging I found The New Dictionary of American History Rowman & Littlefield (who "publishes high-quality college texts, entertaining and informative books for general readers, and professional and scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences.") which on page 29 states "JOHN J. PERSHING held the rank of six star General of the Armies, especially conferred upon him by Congress" The book was published in 1965 and in paperback form in 2014. Several other sources identify Pershing as a "six star general" :Mark Grossman's 2007 World Military Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary, Intervention!: The United States and the Mexican Revolution, 1913-1917 calls it an "artificial rank" on pg 327, Alan Boye's The Complete Roadside Guide to Nebraska University of Nebraska Press pg 268 states that "Pershing was America's first six star general", and so on.

Should some mention of this be here in this article or should it remain in the General of the Armies article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@BruceGrubb: It should be added here and to the other article. Every time something gets added here (with RSs or not) it gets dubiously deleted by the handful of page owners. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Great research, BruceGrubb. I've added it to my personal web page on the subject as it's obviously of no interest to those who control this page. Andrewa (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

He held the rank of "General of the Armies", wore four gold stars, was accorded in December 1944 (when Marshall, McArthur and Eisenhower received their five-star-rank) seniority/precedence over these, but there was no such rank as a six-star general. Citing some odd dictionary as "source" is not serious sourcing. --Cosal (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is true, but the emphasis on the number of stars in the insignia is misleading. In many of the countries that officially endorse the star rank convention (all NATO countries and some others such as mine) the insignia don't necessarily follow that convention, and at the time of Pershing's promotion it didn't exist even in the USA. So the number of stars in the insignia is irrelevant.

Dismissing that source seems unjusitified to me, but not unexpected. As one of my pages on the subject says (speaking of Goering's Reichsmarschall uniform) Those who don't believe the rank existed probably don't believe that the uniform exists either, and no photo is likely to convince them. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Discussion of possible merge that may affect this article, see Talk:General of the Armies#Merge. - wolf 10:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tag

@DrKay: After a break in the sentence that starts as; "As Congress was trying to create the rank of Fleet Admiral in 1944...", you added the following tag with note; "failed verification/reason-Congress refused to pass the legislation, so they clearly weren't trying to create it". But surely you know that it wasn't the entire body of congress working on that bill? It only takes a single member to propose it and there can be many (of a minority) that support it, but in the end, for whatever reason, it didn't become law. I don't see the issue you apparently had with that sentence, nor the need to tag, or add that note, or to not just do a quick c/e fix on the sentence, that would have taken less effort than the tag, etc. itself. (jmho) - wolf 11:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Explained in 'reason' field of the tag. DrKay (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Er, yes... I posted my question after that. It was your "reason" that I was seeking a clarification of. But anyway... it seems it's been fixed. - wolf 05:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be over-doing it now... - wolf 12:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)