Talk:Admiral of the Navy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nimitz as 6 Star

I deleted the information that Admiral Nimitz was considered for 6-star rank because I find that to be an extraordinary enough claim to warrant a reference citation. It is not mentioned in Potter's biography of Nimitz, Morison or any history of the USN in WWII that I have come across. It also doesn't seem likely that Nimitz would be given a rank higher than his boss, COMINCH-CNO. Nor does it seem necessary to have a 6-star officer in the Pacific since the fleet commanders were 4-star and the major task force and area commanders were 3-star. -- J.T. Broderick, 29 August, 2005

The reference to Chester Nimitz's proposed 6 star promotion is based on documents from his U.S. Navy service record on file at the National Personnel Records Center. There are several letters talking about promoting him beyond 5 star rank but the name of the rank is not actual mentioned. The Institute of Heraldry are the ones who actually propose that Nimitz's new rank would be known as Flag Admiral, equivalent to the old Admiral of the Navy. How to cite all that? I don't know. As it was a rather small article, that has actually never come up. -Husnock 01:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you, that is very interesting. Do you know where the proposal originated? And how far along it got? If TIOH did work on it I assume it was at least past the speculative stage. I still don't really see a need for it, though.

As for the cite, I would suggest something like "Letters in the service file of Adm. Nimitz indicate..." in the body, and "(Full Name) to (Full Name), letter, (date)" for the cite. Thanks again for the info. J.T. Broderick 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No Such Rank or Grade

There is no "Rank" or "Grade" of six star Admiral of the Navy or General of the Armies. Try a hitch in the service: There is nothing outside of the minds of Wikepedians that holds that there is such a rank or grade.

This is absurd. I've seen these discussions morph from some pleasant speculation to something akin to a papal bull. Outside of the Wikipedia dogma, there is no such thing. These were honorary titles. It makes Wikipedia look, frankly, ridiculous. -unsigned anon user

Already addressed over on Talk:General of the Armies. The two ranks are very well established. -Husnock 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of stars

The article says "six star", then the insignia shown has four stars. Is there anything that we should know? --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Ok, let's look at the information on this page.

1) There the rank given to Dewey in 1899. Which is specified as being senior to Admiral and equal to the UK Admiral of the Fleet. In other words, it's identical in all but name to FADM.

2) There's the proposal to maybe promote Nimitz to a rank senior to FADM, that might have been called Admiral of the Navy. Interesting factoid, but doesn't seem worthly of anything more than a section in the larger article. --RaiderAspect 06:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very much against this. Admiral of the Navy is its own rank which holds a special status in the United States Navy. it is not the same as a Fleet Admiral and should not be merged into that article. -38.119.112.187 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong against They are not the same rank. Definitely appropriate for {{Seealso}}, but not a merge. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Undo 1976 vs 1776 for George Washington

Regarding this reversion, please see General of the Armies for the effective date of George Washington's promotion. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Paul Jones

When was the edit saying that he was a Six-star Admiral verified? There is no citation, and I have found no notations or anything along those lines that suggest that this was true. In fact, this article stated for years that he was NOT considered Admiral of the Navy, despite his role in the country's founding. Has some new Act of Congressional Authority changed this? 74.69.21.12 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He never held the rank and I reverted the edit. -OberRanks (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there have been proposals that he should be retroactively granted the rank, in the same way George Washington was retroactively promoted in 1976 to General of the Armies, but nothing has ever come of it. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Admirals of the Navy

Reverted what appeared to be a good faith edit on the grounds that this is the first I've ever heard or read of anywhere Admiral of the Navy being held by anyone other than George Dewey. On the surface it appears to be original research. Open to comments on this, but such a major change to a historical article needs to be very well cited. -OberRanks (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for the integrity of the article. In making my alterations, I was very careful to avoid inclusion of original research. Each of the statements I introduced was referenced from a reputable published source (all from the late 19th or early 20th Century). That the grade was held three times was stated in "Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society for the Years 1915-1916" (1918); that it was held by David G. Farragut, David D. Porter, and George Dewey was asserted by Edward S. Ellis in "The Life Story of the Hero of Manila for Our Boys and Girls" (1899); that each officer ascended to the rank in the year given is also from Ellis; that Congress revived the rank on 2 March, 1903, and re-enacted it in identical terms the following day is taken nearly verbatim from the April 1, 1912 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (The actual relevant text reads: "The office of Admiral of the Navy was re-established by the act of March 2, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 995, chap. 378, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 981, re-enacted in identical terms by a portion of the naval appropriation act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 1045, chap. 421."; I included this in the reference note).

Under United States law, a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States can only be overridden by a later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. To date, the court has addressed the question of re-establishment only in Spencer S. Wood v. United States (though United States v. Steam Vessels of War Seaboard Texas Beaufort, Jan 15, 1883, includes the description "David D. Porter, now Admiral of the Navy"; his official reports were also entitled "Report of the Admiral of the Navy"). That decision supersedes all other declarations, including the several statements by senior Navy officials in the Congressional Record and elsewhere that Dewey's rank was superior.

I think this constitutes a very well-cited revision, and establishes clearly that the alterations to the article are not original research (except the caption to Farragut's picture, which I don't think is excessive; if Farragut was an Admiral of the Navy, then a picture of Farragut during his service in that grade is a picture of Farragut in the uniform of an Admiral of the Navy, ipso facto; if necessary, though, the caption can be changed). I have restored the relevant cited statements to the article, and included revisions since the date they were removed (excepting uncited material). --Archimedean (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Higher Rank

The Navy has consistently and officially stated that Dewey held a higher rank than Farragut and Porter.

Capt. Roy C. Smith, testifying before the House Committee on Naval Affairs (16 May 1912):

Admiral Dewey is Admiral of the Navy, equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet, a rank which is higher than any we have ever had. Admiral Farragut and Admiral Porter were admirals in our Navy.

Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, on the occasion of Dewey's death in 1917 (General Order No. 258):

Later by special act of Congress he was promoted to be The Admiral of the Navy, a rank never held by an American naval officer previously, although two, Porter and Farragut, were rewarded with the rank of full Admiral.

President Woodrow Wilson, on the occasion of Dewey's death in 1917 (17 January 1917):

At the time of his death he held the exceptional rank of The Admiral of the Navy by special act of Congress.

Navy Office of Information (17 May 1963):

An Act of Congress, 2 March 1899, created the rank of Admiral of the Navy. It provided that when such office became vacant either by death or otherwise, the office would cease to exist. On 24 March 1903, Admiral Dewey, who held the rank of Admiral since 8 March 1899, was commissioned Admiral of the Navy, with date of rank 2 March 1899, and became the only officer of the United States Navy who was ever so commissioned.

Part of the confusion by third-party sources may arise from the mistake that was made in Dewey's original commission, which apparently really was for the Farragut/Porter rank, which is why Dewey got a new commission in 1903 (New York Times, March 15, 1903):

Attention was recently called to a slight difference between the wording of Admiral Dewey's commission and the law of 1899 under which it was provided for. The commission of the Admiral reads "The Admiral in the Navy" where the law has it "Admiral of the Navy." Accordingly a new commission has been made out for the admiral, and this necessitated a new nomination and confirmation by the Senate.

I can't find any source to support the contention that Wood v. United States (1912) ruled that the two ranks are the same. Given that the phrases "re-created" and "re-established" were totally peripheral to the point of Wood v. United States -- which was about whether an aide to the Admiral of the Navy was entitled to the pay of an aide to the General of the Army and turned on whether or not the General of the Army legislation had been repealed, not whether the office of Admiral of the Navy had been created or revived -- I would defer to the many subsequent official sources that have asserted for decades that Dewey held a different rank. - Morinao (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This looks like pure WP:OR. On top of everything, the Navy Historical Society states very clearly that Dewey was the only person to ever hold this rank. Trying to retroactively apply this grade to the Civil War is a theory and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not specific and related tags

See Talk:6 star rank#Not specific and related tags for some related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move disputed

I reverted the recent page move as it appears to distort the capitalization of this rank as it appears in the Congressional order creating the grade. This is related also to an active discussion at Talk:General of the Armies. I would ask a further page move be avoided until consensus is reached regarding the United States "super rank" capitalization. -OberRanks (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shoulder board illustration

I moved the shoulder board illustration out of the info box, which made it appear as if it applied to Dewey's grade of Admiral of the Navy and might have been confusing to a reader. The article states that the shoulder board was proposed in the 1980s for a grade that was never given a title. Dewey's shoulder board insignia, like his collar and shoulder straps, was four silver stars in a line, with gold foul anchors under the outer stars, see https://archive.org/details/1905UniformRegulationsOfTheUnitedStatesNavy p. 31.J.T. Broderick (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, thank you for the change. -O.R.^Comms 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Epaulette Insignia

Is there any way we can get an illustration of the Epaulette insignia for Admiral of the Navy, as worn on both Speacial Full Dress uniform and Full Dress uniform?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)