Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 4

Archive?[edit]

This talk page is now over 100,000 bytes. Does it cause anyone a problem if I archive (most of) it? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, most is relevant one way or another to settling the points that have been and may continue under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. (Thanks.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current article content[edit]

Some days ago I asked:

Is there ANY reason why you (or I) should not revert the article back to early July?

If you don't provide a reason, or don't revert it, I will. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(With one exception), NO-ONE has directly responded, (despite the fact that there is a LOT of irrelevant waffle in a subsequent section titled: Talk:Six-star rank#Revert alert) The exception is: But I'm yet to be convinced that the proposed revert is an improvement. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have "evidence", but after removal of the WP:OR and irrelevant stuff from the current version, I don't think there's anything left!! At least the reverted version (although in my biased view, is far from "perfect") is relevant, and has the status of being the result of some sort of WP:consensus ...

In case it wasn't clear, I'm looking for "a better answer", and, apparently, I need all the help I can get.

If I don't get any intelllegent / useful / relevant / whatever responses, I'll add a {{help me}} tag. If that provides no useful result, then the only alternative seems to be to revert back to early July.

"Help!" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May be for most readers the most useful part of the article will be the banner above the lead: "Six-star general" redirects here. For the 1973 record album of that name, see Vinegar Joe (band). For other high military ranks, see highest military ranks. Qexigator (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highest rankings - (actually: Consensus)[edit]

In view of the discussion, I have removed the section "Highest rankings", which was introduced 19 July.[1]. But other than that, as I understand the above comments so far (in 'Revert alert', and ' "Definition" of six-star rank revisited'), there is not complete agreement, or sufficient to be considered "consensus", for further reverting from the current version (as at 01:32, 25 July )[2] to[3], which led to the 48hr edit block. The discussion seems to extend across the 24hr time zones. Qexigator (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do seem to have a "world-wide" discussion happening.

And sorry, but no. No agreement is needed to remove WP:OR and/or irrelevant information, or any other posting that are contrary to Wikipedia policy or guidelines - such information falls in to categories of "vandalism", "good faith but contrary to policy and/or guidelines", or "test edits". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to "sorry" for what has not been asserted. Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is worse than it was a month ago. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the content is now sparse. Perhaps no more so than the title deserves, in the absence of sources with interesting commentary. The article has been improved by a tweak or two, and may be one or two more could improve it further, within the limits reached per discussion. Qexigator (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. We have gone backwards. The current version is in some ways better than some of the intermediate stages, but it's still pretty woeful.

Not quite sure what to do next. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why replicate?[edit]

Given that the article is not to be deleted nor expanded in the way that had been attempted, and that a six-star figure for "Six star rank (proposed grade)" is shown in Hmr-General-By star ranks,

the article is not improved by replicating the image in the text. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning for the claim that the article is not improved by replicating the image in the text? It seems most unlikely to be true.

It seems clear to me, for example, that the article Flag of the United States is greatly improved by having the image of the flag in the infobox. However a smaller version of the image does appear in Template:Six flags of Texas which appears at the bottom of the page.

This tiny version is no substitute for the larger image, and would still be no substitute even if the Six flags of texas template were to be expanded by default. I think it would be ridiculous to even suggest that this article is not improved by replicating the image. It is very much improved by doing exactly that.

But you seem to be suggesting something similar does apply here. Why? What have I missed? Andrewa (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. It is, perhaps, arguable, that for most onscreen readers the plain text content of articles generally, even one as short as this, will be improved by a well-placed image, preferably coloured. That's the usual way comparable pages in print magazines, booklets, pamphlets, flyers, are made up. In the particular case of Flag of the United States I would, if asked, have agreed that it is good to have the flag displayed at the top as it is, in the infobox, but I do not see it replicated in the article, and even if it is, I would still agree that it would be helpful to let readers be able to see it in the infobox at the top, and, all the more, not left for them to find in a template at the end of that longish article. (I hope the reason is too obvious to need articulating.) But an editor with skill and knowldge will select pictures: not at random, not out of proportion, not jarring on the visual impact of the page, and so on. Qexigator (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have followed the links I gave. If so, look more closely. It is replicated in exactly the same way as the five star image would be, with the exception that the footer is not expanded, as I also said. Look first at the footer template which I quoted, that makes it easier to see, which is why I quoted it.

But more important, you don't seem to have answered the question. If I were looking only at this latest post, I would conclude that you had no objection at all to replacing the image as I did before. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied after following the link and seeing the footer:- "... it would be helpful to let readers be able to see it in the infobox at the top, and... not left for them to find in a template at the end of that longish article." Per your comment above:The insignia is a fascinating factoid, and clearly encyclopedic. 1_"fascinating factoid" (about insignia) does not = "clearly encyclopedic", just as "insignia" does not = "rank" (which is the article topic). Fascination is likely to lead astray an editor's judgment on the question of "encyclopedic". 2_After re-reading from the top the comments on this page, I do not see as much weight in favour of (replicating) the image as there is against. But, if a section were added with source based information about how the only change made to Pershing's insignia was not by star number but by metal, from silver to gold, with an image of that, the article's informative value would benefit. Qexigator (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another crop of straw men, now with ad hominem argument and still no attempt to answer the question. I'm sorry if that seems harsh. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington[edit]

"In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington" - It doesn't! And it's not clear to me what this section is about Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Washington's posthumous upgrade, pursuant to resolution in Congress, to US General of the Armies, which had been uniquely and emphatically expressed to be with precedence over all other grades of the Army past or present, was thereafter widely reported in the US press as promotion to six-star rank, it appears that, from this bicentennial event in 1976, in the USA six-star rank is not, and cannot properly be, used to denote any other grade, leaving no room for notable conjecture or speculation to the contrary. Qexigator (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thereafter widely reported - False. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the rest, it makes no sense to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+Further revisions[4] about precedence above five-star generals help to elucidate this. Qexigator (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except: a) It doesn't. b) ANYTHING in this article about 5* is irrelevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed first sentence[edit]

Given the content of the present version of the article,[5] it is proposed, for clarity and accuracy, that the opening/leading sentence be adapted to read:

~~A six-star rank is a proposed or conjectural grade of military rank, above the five-star rank of a US general of the army.~~ In the United States six-star rank is ~~it has been~~ used in reference to ~~that country's~~ the formal title General of the Armies awarded posthumously to George Washington in 1976.

Qexigator (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, these newspapers appear to be in error. Macarthur's proposed rank was a six star rank. Had it been awarded, Washington's later rank would still be superior to it.

Yes, but it wasn't awarded, so any such speculation is not relevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, six star ranks occur outside of the USA, just as five star ranks do.

Really? Where? (Examples please.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither of these are new issues. The appalling state of the current article can't be fixed just by writing an equally appalling lead to match it. Andrewa (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"these newspapers appear to be in error. Macarthur's [sic] proposed rank was a six star rank." How is that distinguishable from SYN and OR violation, or simply private speculation? Anyhow, whether or not "new issues" they are not supported in the article as we now have it. Why "appalling"? With the modified sentence proposed above, it would at least make sense,!as at[6]! except putting MacArthur here with Washington is like comparing pinchbeck with gold, and the article would loose nothing if the MacArthur episode were omitted. Congress and the President concurred in honouring Washington not merely for his feats as a general, but as a President who was best able to stand for and unite the states of the newly formed federal republic afterwards. The attempt to promote MacArthur's upgrade was due to quite other circumstances, and failed. Qexigator (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) +!...! 16:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the article would loose nothing if the MacArthur episode were omitted... Words fail me. This article is about six star ranks. Macarthur's proposed and very notable promotion was to a six star rank. Am I missing something? One of us is!

except putting MacArthur here with Washington is like comparing pinchbeck with gold, and the article would loose nothing if the MacArthur episode were omitted. - WP:OR in extremis!! FYI, to date, MacArthur is the ONLY person for whom there has been a proposal for promotion to six-star rank. (Washington's seniority is completely independent of the subject of "stars". (Read the joint congressional proposal - NO mention of stars). Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we prohibit original research in articles, we don't completely prohibit use of primary sources even there, and when challenging the factual accuracy of an article we allow reasoning that wouldn't be acceptable in the article itself. This is a case in point. Macarthur's proposed rank is explicitly six star. Washington's rank is explicitly superior to this. If you wish to claim, in the face of that, that Washington's rank is six star, then you need better sources than these newspapers. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..."appalling"? Well, it is now once more a frankly all-US army show, which is perhaps what this article should be. Is there really call for another article, about higher military ranks above "OF-10", for all countries with armies, past and present or as from 20c.? Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what this article should be... And perhaps not. Just because you have removed relevant material, and added irrelevant and POV material... words fail me.

Is there really call for another article, about higher military ranks above "OF-10", for all countries with armies, past and present or as from 20c.? Yes, that's the question exactly. But you can't argue no just on the basis that you have removed the relevant and encyclopedic material from the article. Or can you? Isn't that exactly what is happening here?

This isn't about higher military ranks above "OF-10" (and we don't have an article scoped to that exactly as far as I can see). This is just about six-star ranks. There is a great deal of interest in these, obviously. We need to scope this article accurately, put back the now well attested insignia (and try to find the other one to add as well), and write a lead which accurately reflects the scope of the topic.

And then, allow it to grow without all this needless angst and instability. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This is just about six-star ranks": but that term has never been properly substantiated, and the scope of the title itself is unstable. Maybe that is why words fail you, and may account for the peverse way in which you address to me words about removing relevant material and adding irrelevant and POV material. Actually, the topic, by the given name, is scarcely notable beyond its present content, and such as can be found in other articles, but the oddest thing is that it excites "needless angst" -- once again not quite the right word, so I am left guessing at what is meant in the context: zealotry? passion? misjudgment? antagonism? quarrelling? brawling? subjective, contradictory, pointless appeals to this or that WP? Well, I don't know, and it may be best to leave it at that. Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this seems to be rhetoric rather than logic.

(Agree. Except I would say: "This IS rhetoric, not logic or fact." Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Let me summarise my view of the important points you raise (or rather repeat) here. The topic described by six star ranks is quite clear. The notability of this topic is quite clear, and has been previously discussed at length. And much of the material you have added over the past month is not relevant to this topic.

Agree that the other points you raise should be left at that. I don't think they have added anything useful, although I agree with some of them. So, replying further to these other points seems pointless. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't[edit]

The original claim in this section (and the heading) In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington is patently untrue, is POV and is original research. But if you wish to pursue it, we should post heads-ups at several other articles which it affects. For a start, both General of the Armies and General of the Army (United States) currently contradict this claim. Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of persistent opposition, let it lapse. Qexigator (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your comments below, I'm curious as to what you meant by lapse. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely clear enough: my "Proposed first sentence" lapses. Instead, I have proposed below that If the title "Six-star rank", irrespective of insignia, stands for a general concept notably widely held, inside or outside the US context, and if that is supported by an external citable source, the article would be improved by making that clear, preferably in the lead sentence, and fully explained in the article. If you can, why not do it? Qexigator (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely clear enough - Andrewa is not stupid. If, indeed, it were "clear enough" why would he ask? i.e. It is NOT clear enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current use of the term "Six-star rank"[edit]

If (as I understand it another editor is contending) the title "Six-star rank", irrespective of insignia, stands for a general concept notably widely held, inside or outside the US context, and if that is supported by an external citable source, the article would be improved by making that clear, preferably in the lead sentence, and fully explained in the article. This would help those reasonably well-informed readers (on the look-out for accurate information more than for fascinating factoids) who otherwise will infer from what the article says and what it does not, that

In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington, since from the 1976 centennial celebration, six-star rank is not, and cannot properly be, used to denote any other grade, leaving no room for notable conjecture or speculation to the contrary. Washington's grade is above five-star rank, but cannot meaningfully be said to be above seven(+)-star, since none such exists in the US military ranking system. At the time, there had been only one previously appointed General of the Armies, a four-star general who had deliberately chosen to retain no more than four stars in his insignia; but the five-star rank had been created, and one five-star general was alive in 1976. This is not OR but common knowledge vouched by the article directly or by links.
No military grade or rank comparable with that posthumously conferred on Washington "above all other ranks in the ... Army forever" has been proposed or conferred on a general, living or dead, by another English speaking country.

Nor is it OR to remark that

The occasion, and the motivation declared in the recitals to the Congressional resolution, for the award to Washington were indisputably unique.
In ordinary parlance (outside, say, astronomy), an expression such as "six-star rank" would be understood as a contraction for "rank using insignia of six stars in a star graded system or classification".

Qexigator (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez User:Qexigator, and I thought I needed to "get a life" ... (The fact that I'm replying to you shows just how much I need to get a life.)

the title "Six-star rank", irrespective of insignia, stands for a general concept notably widely held, inside or outside the US context, and if that is supported by an external citable source - Where does this come from? More WP:OR? Reliable source please!

stands for a general concept notably widely held - I haven't ever seen any evidence that would support that statement. Can you supply any? i.e. Reliable source please!

(BTW: Your "coy" use of the phrase "another editor" is simply ambiguous and confusing. Be specific.)

and if that is supported by an external citable source - That is a HUGE "if" - to-date there is no such reliable source. the article would be ... - Yes, and if day were night, lots of other things "would be" - BUT: It isn't, AND, they aren't, so such ramblings add no value.

In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington - Absolute rubbish!! If anything, it "appertains exclusively to MacArthur". As I've asked before (and you've never answered): "Do you just make it up as you go?" And the rest of that paragraph is arrant nonsense, too. e.g. This is not OR but common knowledge Ummmmm. Errrrrr. No. It isn't. Sorry sunshine, but WP:OR is EXACTLY what it is. And the rest of your post is ALSO WP:OR

Really sunshine, you need to understand Wikipedia policy & guidelines before you shove your foot down your throat any further. I'm tired of trying to explain things to you - henceforth I'm just going to revert any nonsense you add and quote the WP policy / guideline that your nonsense contravenes. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another, not you. Good to see you using such life as you have by making some cogent comments, as well as some good edits, which confirm the basis for some of my remarks above. But I'm not sure you have yet quite got the point about Washington. No matter, what's an amicable response to make to yours? Mooshine? Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer - yes, an amicable response is a good idea, and yes, there's more to life than getting "hot under the collar" about Wikipedia articles. (Regarding: Good to see you using such life as you have by making some cogent comments, as well as some good edits - Well, every now-and-then I "have my moments". Sadly, they are few, and they are far between. But happily, (every now-and-then), I DO have them! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

A little more about the status created on a unique occasion for Washington, and for him alone, according to the facts and narrative now in and connected with the article. The effect of the appointment was, not only to honour him for all time, so far as lay within the power of Congress, as a military hero and founding father of the republic, but to emphasise that in all cases, including his, from the beginning of the republic, under the Constitution, the military power, irrespective of high number star or super-star ranking, is subordinate and responsible to the civil power, represented by the president as c-in-c, and to the Congress. With the case of MacArthur as a recent precedent, and Ike whose service as a five-star general was in abeyance for the duration of his presidency, all future generals and their adherents and supporters, were thereby admonished not to presume to rise higher than Washington in respect of military authority, and all future members of Congress and all future Presidents were admonished not to let that happen. Qexigator (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, but how is ANY of that relevant to an article with the title "six-star rank"?

i.e. You are on the wrong page / wrong talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is in connection with the first para. at top of this section, and first bullet - just to let you know. No answer required. Qexigator (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. (I don't understand it, but never-the-less, I appreciate that you went to the effort.) Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoned and unemotive comment from others will be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, it would be preferred by almost all if such comment were relevant to THIS article, which has the title "six-star rank". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies[edit]

In US, six-star rank appertains exclusively to Washington, since from the 1976 centennial celebration, six-star rank is not, and cannot properly be, used to denote any other grade, leaving no room for notable conjecture or speculation to the contrary. Washington's grade is above five-star rank, but cannot meaningfully be said to be above seven(+)-star, since none such exists in the US military ranking system. At the time, there had been only one previously appointed General of the Armies, a four-star general who had deliberately chosen to retain no more than four stars in his insignia; but the five-star rank had been created, and one five-star general was alive in 1976. This is not OR but common knowledge vouched by the article directly or by links.

Nope. Six-star ranks have existed in the past (Pershing definitely, and Dewey arguably), so if Washington's rank is superior to all past ranks, it's superior to a six-star rank.

Sorry - I can't agree.

i) I know of no evidence that supports that either Pershing or Dewey were 6* - the most obvious counter-evidence being: a) their insignia had 4 stars; b) 5 star ranks had not been thought of, much less implemented, at those times. c) Thoughts about 6 stars didn't exist until the end of WWII.

ii) To date, there is no such thing as a 6 star rank

iii) As you say in the next paragraph, Washington's promotion is superior to ALL US ranks - past, present and/or future; the number of stars they may have, or may be associated with is quite simply, irrelevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) their insignia had 4 stars... I'm sorry, words fail me. That is not evidence of this at all. How many times do we need to remind you that there's a difference between having n stars in the insignia and having an n-star rank?

Sorry, you lost me. (i.e. don't understand.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with the facts stated in b) and c), but again that's not relevant. The question is not how their ranks were regarded then, but how they are regarded now.

Disagree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To date, there is no such thing as a 6 star rank - begs the question, surely?

Begs which question? No. I don't think so. i.e. As far as I'm aware: "To date, there is no such thing as a 6 star rank". Do you have ANY evidence that there is? Personally, I think not. However, if you do, I'd be DELIGHTED to see it. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally with iii). That's what I've been trying to say, repeatedly. Can I now claim consensus on that one point, do you think? Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington's promotion is superior to ALL US ranks - past, present and/or future; the number of stars they may have, or may be associated with is quite simply, irrelevant. - Well, you and I agree. However, I think you need to solicit User:Qexigator's POV before you conclude that. i.e. 3 out of 3 is thin, but it's 100%. 2 out of 3 is, in my biased opinion, "a bit thin" for claiming consensus - but note, that's just my opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we need to remind you that there's a difference between having n stars in the insignia and having an n-star rank?

No military grade or rank comparable with that posthumously conferred on Washington "above all other ranks in the ... Army forever" has been proposed or conferred on a general, living or dead, by another English speaking country. Nor is it OR to remark that

Agree. And again, if Washington's rank is above all other ranks in the ... Army forever, then it's superior to any future six-star rank.

(Is this was previously there, I missed it) then it's superior to any future six-star rank. - Ouch!! That's like saying "If 4 apples are more than 3 apples, then they are also more than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 oranges". Sorry - disagree - non sequitur. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by another English speaking country - That's an EXTREMELY "bold" statement!! Until a supporting reference is supplied, it is most certainly WP:OR!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR or not, there are a finite number of English Speaking countries, and their ranking systems are not too difficult to find. You may be sure if there were any who had a military grade or rank comparable with that posthumously conferred on Washington "above all other ranks in the ... Army forever" it would be well enough known. Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's an "ES" country? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Inspiration: English speaking!! Woo hoo!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there are a finite number of English Speaking countries - So what? (i.e. to what is this relevant?)

and their ranking systems are not too difficult to find. - I'd agree, but ... So what? (i.e. to what is this relevant?)

You may be sure ... - Ummmmm. Errrr. Ummmm. Errrr. Politest response I can think of is: "Not necessarily". i.e. a) I disagree. b) No, without a supporting reference from a relevant reliable source, it is WP:OR Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ordinary parlance (outside, say, astronomy), an expression such as "six-star rank" would be understood as a contraction for "rank using insignia of six stars in a star graded system or classification".

would be understood - ^{[by whom?]}. Again, until a supporting reference is supplied, it is most certainly WP:OR!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by whom? By all reasonably competent in English speech and idiom, such as (believe it or not) you and me and all of us editing here, not to mention Mr JW himself, founder of this multi-access website, and born and bred in the USA federal republic. Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Logically, yes. HOWEVER, you are attempting to apply logic to a situation where logic does not apply. Hence, I repeat, and continue to assert: "until a supporting reference is supplied, it is most certainly WP:OR!!" Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how many times do we need to remind you that there's a difference between having n stars in the insignia and having an n-star rank?

No, in ordinary parlance a six-star rank is one grade above a five-star rank. No more, no less. Five-star ranks include field marshal, for example. Insignia at the right. Please count the stars. Andrewa (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the theme: Until you provide a supporting reference from a relevant reliable source, there is NO justification for, or evidence that, "a six-star rank is one grade above a five-star rank." Without a relevant reliable supporting reference, the statement is most certainly WP:OR!!" Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By-the-way: This argument was discussed and lost years ago in the talk pages, and can be found in the archives, should you wish to search for it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No more, no less. Five-star ranks ... - To what is this relevant? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. As before asked, can you substantiate the use of the word/s "six-star" rank in relation to Pershing or Dewey in their lifetime? Afterwards? You seem to be unable to do so. You need not trouble yourself about reminding me about the distinction between rank and insignia. That is the point at issue. You have an odd notion of "ordinary parlance", meaning the ordinary day to day use of written and spoken English. I see no stars at all in the insignia of a UK F-M: what do you mean? The count is zero, nought, none. Please clarify. Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So in ordinary parlance, do you consider this to be a five-star rank? Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in ordinary parlance, but only with reference to and in the context of the NATO coding, based, of course on the US system, which has five stars tops. The six-star has nothing to refer to, except perhaps for persons who have chosen to use it in the way for which you contend, with exception only for the special use of it in reports about Washington's bicentennial award in 1976, meaning in effect, as would probably (conjecture) have been well understood by US citizens at the time, "above the five-star rank then held by Bradley only, and above Ike and the others who had left the land of the living". (I'm now going to have a look at your draft for comment.) Qexigator (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree! Maybe I misunderstood something? Yes, that IS an attempt at humour ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you agree, but who could tell? Thanks for comments. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so in ordinary parlance as you are using the term here, field marshal (United Kingdom) is not in your view a five-star rank, is that correct?

To whom is this addressed? If me i) I have no interest in ordinary parlance. ii) Why are we talking about FMs and 5* ranks? The topic is "six-star rank". However, I suspect it is not addressed to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Not wanting to ambush you, I'll reveal my next move. I think your term ordinary parlance is a complete red herring, with no bearing on this discussion. At least not as you are using the term. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's an ambush, I'm a six-star general! In ordinary parlance (you know, man-in-street Clapham-omnibus sort of bloke, male probably but not excluding any female interested in the topic) F-M (UK) is not a star ranker of any number, except for the purpose of the NATO coding to the extent that is relevant, and not otherwise affecting his rank, status or military or civil precedence in the UK. Oddly enough, F-Ms are usually given peerages, formerly old-style hereditary, now life peerages with membership in the House of Lord, which is more to the point and on topic than the old Soviet, Nazi German or N.Korean regimes. Qexigator (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want it both ways. F-M (UK) is not a star ranker of any number, except for the purpose of the NATO coding to the extent that is relevant, and not otherwise affecting his rank, status or military or civil precedence in the UK. So, similarly, field marshal (Australia) would not be a star ranker of any number either, or are there exceptions there too? Where do we draw the line?

Our article currently [7] says that an Australian field marshal is a direct equivalent of the British military rank of field marshal. A five-star rank, the equivalent ranks in the other armed services are admiral of the fleet and marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force (my emphasis). There are no qualifications given there to say in which contexts it is a five-star rank.

Military precedence and seniority across different forces is complex enough. Don't make it worse. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comment[edit]

I've created a draft for discussion (ONLY) in my personal sandbox User:Andrewa/sandbox.

In particular, I invite all to compare the current draft for discussion to the current article.

What I'd appreciate is comment on the differences. Not just which is better, but which particular differences are of interest. Which particular differences would improve the article as it now stands, and which would make it worse. And why.

The draft for discussion is not perfect. In particular I could slap a lot more citation needed tags on it, the few that are there are just there because I haven't removed them in fact. But it shows the way I think the article should develop.

And I think that some of the changes at least should go in to the current article, while others should hang back while we find references.

That is to say, I think the draft for discussion is all accurate, and informative, and interesting, and relevant. Largely unsourced, yes, you don't need to tell me that! But inaccuracies, irrelevancies, etc. it would be good to discuss.

And any sources for the many unsourced claims there, even better!

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1_You seem to accept(?) that the lead is a non-starter if it has no source as a basis, particularly The term six-star is well established for these ranks. 2_The main part of the article is interesting, but there seems to me to be little reason, logic or sense to combine the ranking system of USA, from which this n-star usage derives, with the totally different regimes of N.Korea, and two states long-dissolved, one after ignominious collapse some years after Stalin's death, and the other after ignominious defeat by military forces under five-star rankers (no need to single out here generals Ike and MacArthur). It would make better sense (subject to SYN'n'OR) to compare Washington's lifetime and posthumous status with that of Napoleonic and 20c. Marshals of France, and possibly with the appointment of generals serving in HM forces as field-marshal, and such other honours as peerages. Qexigator (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that lead is very much a starter IMO. Agree that sources are needed.

there seems to me to be little reason, logic or sense to combine the ranking system of USA, from which this n-star usage derives, with the totally different regimes of N.Korea, and two states long-dissolved, one after ignominious collapse some years after Stalin's death, and the other after ignominious defeat by military forces under five-star rankers (no need to single out here generals Ike and MacArthur) Equally then, we should remove the references to these systems from the articles on five-star rank, four-star rank [8] etc., and vice versa?

The star rank system is no longer just used for the US or even just for NATO. So, where do we draw the line?.

Actually, I disagree with the "black&white" nature of that statement. (i.e. "it's neither "that simple", nor "that straightforward". If you want me to expand, I'm happy to, but the volume of "stuff" currently on this page, PLUS what's in the archives, is beyond the ability of anyone to digest in a few days. I've been following, and contributing to it, for years, and although I have a good gut feeling for the issues, the "standard" arguments, and the "standard" replies, I don't pretend to know everything. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this again really focuses on the lead. The reason, logic or sense is simply that these are on-topic.

Peerages are off-topic. Agree about that!

Unsure about France. You will I'm sure have noticed that my draft for discussion doesn't even mention either Marshal of France or the corresponding naval honour, but possibly the article should, just briefly and if and only if we feel that people will end up here looking for that information, or that's my current thinking. The bottom line is reader experience.

Agree that It would make better sense (subject to SYN'n'OR) to compare Washington's lifetime and posthumous status with that of Napoleonic and 20c. Marshals of France.... That's my point exactly. It makes no sense to regard him as a six-star officer. His rank is explicitly senior to six stars, or any other. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this degree of agreement, perhaps there is a possibility of convergence, or perhaps not. There is little I feel I can add to my previous comments. Your draft may be a start waiting for development, but it isn't going to go anywhere without something to back it up, and still we have nothing, not even a rabbit out of a hat, only bare speculations. In my view, until there is something to go on, other than your various lines of reasoning alone, your draft must be considered lapsed or stalled or in suspense. What was its lead again?

A six-star rank is a rank immediately superior to a five-star rank. ~that is the proposition to be demonstrated.
Several militaries have or have had such a rank. ~but the USA certainly never has (except as publicly but unofficially reported of Washington on a particular unique and unrepeatable occasion), nor HM forces (UK and Commonwealth), but Marshal of France has seven-star insignia, using a system notably different from US star-ranking. It is too far a stretch to rely on N.Korea or the others to make the case.
...Six-star ranks may include General of the Armies, Admiral of the Navy, Wonsu and Taewonsu. ~begs the proposition which is to be demonstrated.
The term six-star is well established for these ranks. ~if so, why is there nothing to support this contention, beyond the mention of six-star in reference to Washington, 1976?
However, although several insignia which include six stars have been proposed for the US rank of General of the Armies, to date no insignia containing six stars has been worn by the holder of a six-star rank anywhere in the world. <Sketch of a six-star insignia for General of the Armies, one of two different designs appearing in US Army files> This tends to negative the proposition specifically in respect of USA.

Conclusion: The proposition is not capable of demonstration, and need be entertained no further.

But the above seems to suggest that the proposition as stated in my lapsed proposal is nearer the actuality:

~~A six-star rank is a proposed or conjectural grade of military rank, above the five-star rank of a US general of the army.~~ In the United States six-star rank is ~~it has been~~ used in reference to ~~that country's~~ the formal title General of the Armies awarded posthumously to George Washington in 1976.

Qexigator (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit early for it to be considered lapsed or stalled or in suspense, whatever that might mean. It's not a week old yet! It's a draft for discussion. Please don't reject proposals that nobody has put.

What part of A six-star rank is a rank immediately superior to a five-star rank needs demonstration? That it is superior? Or that there is no intermediate grade? Or that such a rank exists at all (I think we've dealt with that, but we do seem to go in circles)?

"demonstration": as in the formal process resulting in Q.E.D., quod erat demonstrandum. This was meant as shorthand, not facetiously. Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six-star ranks may include General of the Armies, Admiral of the Navy, Wonsu and Taewonsu. Agree it could be better phrased, but I don't see exactly what the problem is you're raising here.

Again, an allusion to the formal "QED" process. Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term six-star is well established for these ranks. Yes, we need sources.

And that is essential if there is to be any progress in this direction. Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This tends to negative the proposition specifically in respect of USA. Which proposition exactly? That an officer has worn such an insignia? Um agree, but so what? Or do you mean to argue, yet again, that an officer needs to wear six stars to be a six-star officer?

The proposition to be demonstrated:A six-star rank is a rank immediately superior to a five-star rank. Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a go. The proposition there is a rank superior to five star has been demonstrated. The proposition there is no rank between five star and six star is a matter of semantics. Agreed so far? Or, do you wish to dispute one of these? Andrewa (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is the first sentence of the draft under consideration, so the question now placed there is hypothetical. Is this a diversionary tactic set by a string-master? Amber ambush alert? Remind all parties in or observing this exercise: sources = sine qua non, and no forward movement can happen without the presence of source cover. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States six-star rank is ~~it has been~~ used in reference to ~~that country's~~ the formal title General of the Armies awarded posthumously to George Washington in 1976. True. So again I ask, if a six-star officer were to be proposed or appointed tomorrow, wouldn't Washington still outrank them by virtue of his rank alone? I think the clear intention is that he would. If so, aren't the newspapers quite simply and patently wrong to call his a six-star rank?

We might suppose that or something else, but it is no more than speculation too flimsy to support the proposition. But see my "Alternatively" now added below. Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to exactly which proposition do you refer?

There are sources that support the proposition that Washington's rank is superior to all others, past, present and possible future. There are sources that support the proposition that a rank superior to five-star has existed in the past and may exist again in the US. To go from these two propositions to the conclusion that Washington's rank is superior to six star is far more than speculation.

But agree that, without a better citation, it doesn't belong in the article. That's one reason for having a draft for comment. Andrewa (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We still need sources, agree. Did you read the infobox at the top of my draft for comment? Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, noted and understood. Here, sources = sine qua non. --Qexigator (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stringing of that last reply correct? It seems two levels two deep. Andrewa (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, given that General of the Armies Pershing's six-star status was confirmed, at and from the creation of five-star rank in the 1940s; and that Washington's upgrade in 1976 was deemed (by whom?) to be likewise of six-star status: "six-star rank" can be taken to mean a rank above the five-star general rank of the US ranking system, or by extension any rank above F-10 in the NATO coding system as it applies to ranking systems of other countries. The catch is that no support for this has been, or is likely to be, found in citable sources. Qexigator (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

given that General of the Armies Pershing's six-star status was confirmed - NONSENSE!!! (Evidence please.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about Pershing. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+[edit]

Reality[edit]

You do realise, don't you, that the two of you can discuss fantasies, and mutually congratulate each other on your musings, until the cows come home? However, until you come up with some hard supporting evidence from even at least ONE relevant reliable source, ALL of the above is simply fantasy, speculation, and WP:OR?

Yet again I will point out to you a FACT. (Not an opinion, not even my opinion!) A fact.

There is not now, and nor has there ever been, ANYTHING, in any country, anywhere, that has been officially defined by that country, or its legislature, or its military, as: a six-star rank.

And before you continue on with your mutual admiration society and your fantasies, I insist you provide some evidence from a relevant reliable source to prove me wrong.

Not your opinions. Not logic. Not even common sense.

Cold, hard, evidence. From a relevant reliable source

Until such time as you do this, you are wasting your own time, (and mine, and anyone else trying to decipher the issues). Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree that it's a waste of my time, or that what I'm discussing is fantasy. See the Parable of the Ants. But I confess I have sometimes thought that others were wasting time, too.

There is not now, and nor has there ever been, ANYTHING, in any country, anywhere, that has been officially defined by that country, or its legislature, or its military, as: a six-star rank. That's true, and the fact that you and many others think that it matters sheds a lot of light on the problem I think. You give undue weight to these authorities, as do most with a keen interest in military history. In their circles, only official pronouncements have any weight at all. Secondary sources do count, but only those based purely on the official sources, and there are many of these, as everyone in these circles knows this rule.

Wikipedia also has restrictions on what sources count, and they're just as important, but they're not so severe. If people are interested in finding out about a six-star rank, or a pink elephant, then we're interested in reporting what if any information is available. Its official or physical status should be reported accurately of course, as part of this.

Our passion for sources has two motivations. Firstly, it helps to keep the information we present accurate. Secondly, in that it doesn't do that first job perfectly and never will, it allows the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the information for themselves. These are both mission-critical for us.

If the information is accurate and of interest to the reader, and if the reader can assess this accuracy for themselves, then objective achieved. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not now, and nor has there ever been, ANYTHING, in any country, anywhere, that has been officially defined by that country, or its legislature, or its military, as: a six-star rank. No contest, no fantasy on the part of..... Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fantasy is that this is relevant. It's another straw man.

Do we have a reliable source that states that brigadier general was officially defined by that country, or its legislature, or its military, as: a ~~two-star~~ rank? It's not obvious that we do have such a reference form the brigadier general article. And of course it doesn't matter. It would be nice to have one, but nobody I hope is going to contest the claim that brigadier general is a one star rank. (And please don't come back of course it is, just count them...) Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone mentioned before, in this three- ~~-star~~ -party discussion it is sometimes unclear to whom a remark or question is being addressed. Well, accepting that all parties can count up to 3, and that the name or title is used in the ranking systems of many countries for a senior rank etc., the article for Brigadier general remarks that in some countries this rank "is informally designated as a one-star general", linking to One-star rank where NATO code OF-6 is mentioned, and the images for the rank show, as I see it, one star, except Egypt which is three-star, and France two-star. But the bare statement "brigadier general is a one star rank" is open to question if there is not adequate explanation, such as the reference there to the NATO code. Without that, the statement is at best questionable. And, without some adequate explanation, the bare statement that such-and-such is a six-star rank is more questionable still. It is the nub of the problem with this article, not so easily dismissed as a Straw man. If there is a solution, we will not find it by denying that there is a problem. Qexigator (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only unclear to whom a remark or question is being addressed because you sometimes ignore WP:THREAD, for reasons that are unclear to me.

But to get back to the question, you seem to be agreeing that there is no reference to back the claim that brigadier general is a one-star rank, and no need for one, is that a fair statement? Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the backing for "one-star rank" there is the NATO Code. I don't think your various lines of reasoning suffice to construct something like that for "six-star" for the purposes of the article. I would like to see it if it can be done. Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are ignoring WP:THREAD. The indenting here indicates that you are replying to yourself, and I don't think that's the intent.

Assuming for now that you are replying to me on the same indent level, that's a circular argument, so I would hope not to argue that way. (;-> What associates the NATO code with a one star rank? Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That assumption was correct. As you know, the NATO code covers all ranks of general based on the US n-star system. That much at least is accepted in this discussion, as I understand it. What are you saying is a "circular argument" of a kind you would hope to avoid? Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the backing for "one-star rank" there is the NATO Code when there is no backing for the association of the NATO code with one star other than article itself, which is what we're looking to find backing for in the first place, is circular.

Yes, it's generally agreed that a one-star rank corresponds to Brigadier, or Brigadier General, and I think it's a true statement. But there is no reference to back the claim that brigadier general is a one-star rank, and I asked you whether you agreed with that, and whether you saw no need for one, and it still seems to me that this is your position, but you haven't actually answered the question. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Blush) I've stricken my mistaken two-star above. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile[edit]

Meanwhile: Why don't you devote your own considerable abilities to the improvement of "highest military ranks"?

If either of you had devoted one tenth of the effort you have expended here to that article, it would be the best article on English Wikipedia! (And lord knows, that article needs all the help it can get!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's currently [9] not perfect, but it's probably better than this one! The lead there for example contains weasel-words and a statement that is unsourced, possibly untrue, and at least controversial.

But frankly, that seems par for the course with any article concerning the US military. Sorry if that sounds a little jaded! I find this article, with its more restricted scope, both more interesting and more likely to be fixable than the other. Even so it doesn't seem all that hopeful I admit. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is a star a mullet?[edit]

The above discussion shows that lack of sources is resulting in lack of words which will adequately explain the topic. An image can help some readers understand where words fail. But one of the odd things about the information presented in this short article, as it will appear to a thoughtful first-time reader, is that while the title is about rank, its text is dominated by a putative design for an insignia that has never been used, and the image is vouched, in a way that is rare, perhaps unique, under WP,RS by a link to an archived Talk page. The bigger image at the top right of the page replicates the smaller one displayed in the footer "Highest military ranks. General officer, Flag officer, Air officer. By star ranks", but a reader will be able to see that the main facts reported in the text are:

The failed proposal in the 1950s for five-star general Macarthur to be promoted to General of the Armies; and, according to information (privately held) obtained from the United States Army Institute of Heraldry, at least one preliminary sketch was made for a six-star insignia which was never executed or used.
The posthumous 1976 award to three-star general Washington of the status of General of the Armies, described in some U.S. newspapers as a six-star rank "despite there being no mention of this in Congress, Senate or US Army documentation to support the claim".

The only connection which the article offers to the reader between the so-called six-star rank and the conjectured six-star insignia is TIOC. The article will be improved by letting the image for TIOC, suitably captioned, be reinstated to the Gallery, where it was placed before it was removed.[10] Qexigator (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "who cares?" and "why might they care?". (Second question rhetorical.)

Why not devote your not inconsiderable abilities to something useful and productive that would benefit from your abilities and your contributions? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOM = Generous, Obiging and Moderate? Thanks for kindly advice. It may be best to get "Highest military ranks" rectified and settled first. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that the image of the Institute of Heraldry coat of arms is more relevant to the article than this one? Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I was a pedant![edit]

Sub-topic #1[edit]

Seriously.

I've spent most of my life being derided for being a pedant. (Until disasters occur, at which time I'm thanked, but NEVER praised, nor am I ever acknowledged. And most certainly, I'm never rewarded!!)

Please tell me: What are either of you two trying to achieve with this page?

i.e. I would really like to understand what either and/or both of you to think / feel / believe / desire / ...

i.e. Not only is it not clear to me what you might think you might want to try to achieve. It is not clear to me what you think you actually CAN achieve. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-topic #2[edit]

Should either of you wish to continue either here and/or on the page itself, what positive / useful role do you want me to play?

i.e. Although I'm disappointingly capable of performing the role of a grumpy old man very well, I'd MUCH rather do something more positive.

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]