Talk:General of the Air Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old article gone?

There used to be a major article here. Now it seems to be gone along with the history and a new one put up in its place. What happened? -OberRanks 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted it, don't know why. I put this stub up because of all the red links. Richard75 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From the deletion log: 15:27, 10 July 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "General of the Air Force" (umm...this is a copyvio from http://www.aviationexplorer.com/air_force_rank_structure.htm) (Restore). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Richard75 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should never have been deleted. The website you referenced appears to have taken their text from THIS page...I asked an IT friend of mine to look at thier webpage code and they added the webpage material recently, far more recent than this article was written some 2-3 years ago. The page itself that is the "victim" is not even that old. From what I have seen on this site, that is not at all uncommon for other websites to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. That appears to be the case here. This article should be restored ASAP. Thanks -OberRanks 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More on this...that entire webpage appears to be a rip-off of Wikipedia. The sections on General, Colonel, Major, Airman, Airman First Class, and First Lieutenant all have segments which were copied from Wikipedia. I think some kind of announcement should be made so that people here dont go around deleting articles (like this one) because they think they were copied from that page when in fact the webpage copied from Wikipedia. -OberRanks 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be careful sometimes about deleting content just because the content appears elsewhere on the internet without attribution. I have seen other cases (see Talk:Amy Fisher/Archives/2013#Response to alleged copyright violation) where someone grabbed our content and someone else (in that case, me) wrongly asserted that it was a copyvio. If we can verify that our content is older than the other web page, then we should restore the old content. --rogerd 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article recreated from redirect

I have undone the revision which merely redirected this article to General (United States). They are NOT the same rank. And there is no problem leaving them as separate articles. If that was the case, then all military rank articles throughout should be merged into a single article. Um, no. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they are currently the same rank. The General (United States) article explains very clearly that the ranks are currently different. So it's not as if covering them both on the same article will cause people to think they're currently the same rank. But the history of the ranks is intertwined. The General (United States) article already covers all the information that is included in this article, so there's no need to have separate articles. Overlap should be minimized. This is not the same as saying that all military rank articles should be merged into a single article, because the history of all military ranks are not intertwined. It's just these few. For further discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Discussion for various United States General articles for a common discussion area. - Shaheenjim 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name changed during move

To make this article consistent with other articles' naming styles, the (United States) suffix has been added via the page move. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The statement "there is no established equivalent five-star rank in the other four uniformed services" is obviously incorrect, so I'm not sure why FlieGerFaUstMe262 put it back after I removed it. The equivalent five star ranks for the other services are , Fleet Admiral and General of the Army. A Fleet Admiral would also have authority over the United States Marine Corps as well as United States Coast Guard, since it is a wartime rank and the USCG is subordinate to the Navy during wartime. Anyway, I'm removing it again, and if someone disagrees with me, I hope they'll say why on the talk page instead of just reverting my edit. Worldruler20 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are seven uniformed services: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. The first three have five star ranks, as you mentioned. The last four do not. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought it was referring to the four armed services. I'll clarify that in the article, since it can be confusing. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty well clarified, "there is no established equivalent five-star rank in the other four uniformed services" is pretty straight forward. If it needs further clarification you can read about the other four uniformed services by cliky da linky. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would probably see "uniformed services" and think "armed services." I don't see why we can't clarify by specifying which uniformed services we're talking about.Worldruler20 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They are different, plain old and simple. The answer is a simple click away for those that are unsure. The sentence tells you that the Army, Air Force and Navy, all have established "five-star" ranks. Even if they think Armed Forces, it won't be an issue for those with an "established" reading comprehension. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

who is it currently?

So who is it today? Who is his predessor? thanks 79.255.221.177 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody currently holds the rank of General of the Air Force. Like the article says, "The only person to hold the rank of General of the Air Force has been Henry H. Arnold. Arnold was a General of the Army (promoted 21 December 1944 under Public Law 282 of the 78th Congress) and was placed on the retired list on 30 June 1946 while the United States Army Air Forces were a component of the U.S. Army." In addition, because it is a rank and not a position, there theoretically could be more than one person with this title, and there would be no "predecessor", per se. Infoman99 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"air force"

Air Force should be capitalised. It refers to one air force in particular, the US Air Force, not air forces in general (pardon the unintentional pun). Richard75 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. I am moving the article back, as this is a proper title of a rank. This was part of an effort by some editors to decap all the U.S. titles in accordance with Manual of Style, but the "super ranks" if the U.S. armed forces are clearly a special case. -O.R.^Comms 13:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue uniform rumor

For several years now this article has indicated that, around 1948, Happ Arnold was photographed in the new Air Force blue uniform. I've done a lot of research on this and have been unable to find any evidence that this is true. Arnold at the time was retired on a ranch and died a year later. It doesn't stand to reason at his age and infirmity that the USAF would have tracked him down, given him a tailor made blue uniform, and photographed him for media purposes. And if they did, there is no record anywhere of the photograph. I've removed the material from the article; if someone has a source to this photograph please share it as it would be a great find. -O.R.^Comms 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Insignia image

(2019)

The rank insignia for General of the Air Force has never included the US coat of arms. Unlike the insignia for General of the Army, GAF has always been simply a circle of 5 stars, on the shoulder straps as well as other displays. This mistake is repeated throughout Wikipedia entries. Venqax (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you back up this claim? Garuda28 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: pinging original author to comment. Garuda28 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Garuda28: I didn't "make" this, I only changed the colour of the eagle. The original author is @Officer781:. There is a version without the eagle available here File:US Air Force O11 shoulderboard.svg. Don't know about this rank, but the Six Star rank does have the eagle, as shown by the Institute of Heraldry here File:GenArmiesCrossService.jpg. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: thanks for the clarification and pinging the original creator. Garuda28 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually vectorized the image from some other image which I have linked on the svg image page on commons. Unfortunately that image is no longer available. From a google search it appears you are right. I will change the links accordingly.--Officer781 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Officer781: So just so we are on the same page, the variant with the seal is erroneous? Garuda28 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going with what google images says. I basically vectorized the original rank images which were either in gif or png form. I am not a specialist in this so I'm not exactly sure. Since I can't find the variant with the seal on google I assume the one without is correct.--Officer781 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So the general of the army one has the seal, then it would make sense that the general of the Air Force one does as well, especially if that reflects the original image you vectorized from. It makes sense that google doesn’t have it because there has been only on GAF ever. In essence, I think we should go with the original image w/ crest as the source, even if it is no longer available, but was sourced (in accordance with precedence for sourcing on Wikipedia. Garuda28 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Garuda28: it makes even more sense, when the six-star version also has a crest. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Institute of heraldry doesn’t do one off things like that. Garuda28 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to see more sites with the crest (especially when the US army uniform was green), but it appears that now, other than navy.mil not many sites show the shoulder boards (since the Navy has a different style for admiral shoulder boards). There are current shoulder board pictures available for the General of the Army but evidently that is now without the crest (the blue uniform). It appears that since 5 star ranks were appointed long ago, we don't know if the 5 star rank shoulder board should technically have the crest as of now, but the blue uniform 5 star GA does not have the crest.--Officer781 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m having some trouble finding an official answer on AF sites. For GO and flag ranks they commonly just show the metal rank, and for the current army shoulder straps, it makes sense the crest isn’t in there because of the design. My current thought process is we use the crest version because it was originally sourced, even if the source dissapeared. It also seems to pass the smell test and heraldry rules, which is an added bonus. Garuda28 (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The General of the Air Force insignia never had the "seal". Only General of the Army. Check the DoDs sight. I don't know where that original erroneous information, or the picture, came from. What is the source for the picture with the seal? It certainly isn't anything official, because it is wrong. Please fix it if want to be "encyclopedic". Venqax (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So the original image was directly copied over from a sourced image, which indicates that it had the seal. Please provide a source that it DID NOT have the seal, otherwise consensus appears to favor the original sourced image. Garuda28 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly neither image that did have the seal and the image without have any better sourcing. I checked the deletion log and I was the one that nominated it because it came from uniforminsignia, which is copyrighted. They both come from uniforminsignia and it seems likely that uniforminsignia changed from one with the seal to one without. Uniforminsignia has errors in their images so I am not very sure if either image is better unless we truly have a US defence source.--Officer781 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to do some online research from USAF sites, and so far I haven’t been able to find anything official. I’ll keep trying on that front. Hopefully the truth will make itself apparent soon. UPDATE: looking through the uniform sources one, it seems that the seal is only used on the Army post WWII uniforms. I’ve been able to find more instances of just the stars on the shoulder straps, so it appears that is the correct on. Garuda28 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Whichever the correct one is, just update the Wikipedia pages accordingly. This was my interest many years ago and I am no longer active in rank insignia, so I am not up to date.--Officer781 (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(cont'd 2021)

@Skjoldbro: I believe @Officer781: is correct that GAF does not have the great seal of the US like GA does. A NATO rank chart shows both of these to be true (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/posters_1949-2013/20150806_14-1745_Uniforms-United-States_1963_ENG-FRE_HR.jpg). This may be a result of OR still. Hope this helps. Garuda28 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Thanks for the source, I have already changed it. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(cont'd 2022)

@Skjoldbro: There is no definitive proof that the shoulder insignia for a General of the Air Force did or didn't have the Great Seal of the United States on it. The uniform of a GAF was never worn. When it became its own branch, the Air Force used all of the Army officer ranks as their own, so by convention the GAF epaulette would have the seal. I know an old NATO poster has been found with the rank without the seal, however, NATO is not the defining authority on US military ranks, and that same poster mixes up the insignia for a Warrant Officer 3 and a Warrant Officer 4 in the Air Force. Therefore, it is possible the poster got the GAF rank wrong. I think the GAF Wiki page should just show the five stars without the epaulette like the DOD's website shows. (https://www.defense.gov/Resources/Insignia/) 68.14.208.126 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@68.14.208.126: Wikipedia is build on Reliable sources. And while NATO, is not a "defining authority on US military ranks" it is considered a reliable sources. And like that source, both:

• Aldebol, Lt. Col. Anthony (1999). Army Air Force and United States Air Force Decorations, Medals, Ribbons, Badges and Insignia (2nd ed.). MOA Press. p. 61. ISBN 1-884452-05-1.
• Kerrigan, Evans E. (1967). American Badges and Insignia. New York, N.Y.: Viking. p. 9. ISBN 978-0670117024.

Also state that the insignia only had stars, without the seal. If you have any reliable sources that states otherwise, you are welcome to present them here.Skjoldbro (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

NATO may be a reliable source, but that NATO poster is not. As stated previously, it mixes up the insignia for the WO3 and WO4 AF ranks. If it made a mistake on those, it could easily make a mistake on other insignia. I went to my library and couldn't find those books, and I'm certainly not buying them. Why don't we remove the shoulder board insignia altogether and put just the star insignia (US-O11 insignia.svg) like shown on the DOD website? 68.14.208.126 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@68.14.208.126: It is a possibility, but what would the five-star be mixed-up with? Regardless, there are submitted other sources that states the rank only has stars. What would be the point of changing the image? Your argument was that "there is no definitive proof that the shoulder insignia for a General of the Air Force did or didn't have the Great Seal", I believe that has been disproven. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that they missed the seal on the poster. That poster needs to be taken off the page as a source because it isn't reliable. The point of changing the image is to showcase the only definitive rank proven by the US Department of Defense. It guarantees everyone is getting 100% accurate information. You're only proof of the shoulder board without seal is two books that cost money to read (so I'm not going to), one of which as far as I can tell was written by someone with no military experience. I believe we should just remove the shoulder board all together. Also, I have contacted the Air Force Chief of Staff's office and the Institute of Heraldry regarding this question. I will let you know if and when they respond. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

But they didn't miss it for the Army? In any case, I have changed it to one of the other sources. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost: "The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time." As for Kerrigan's book, he mentions these people who assisted with the book:

• MAJ Joseph M. Massaro & George Catloth of the IoH
• LTC C. V. Glines & MAJ Robert A. Webb of the Magazine and Book Branch of the USAF

Regardless, military experience doesn't effect the reliability of the source. While contacting the IOH is commendable, we need to be able to add exact references to properly WP:SOURCE things. Meaning, we need page number(s), file indexes, author(s), etc, anything that we as go directly to that source to verify it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." Like I stated before, if you have any WP:RS, you are welcome to post them or take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about this article (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/insignia-rank-general-of-the-air-force-gen-henry-quothapquot-arnold/nasm_A19610010003) posted by the Smithsonian Institute which shows the shoulder board of General Arnold's uniform and labels it as General of the Air Force?

Thank you for changing the reference to remove that poster. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's very clearly his Army rank. Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's very clearly the epaulette from a jacket labeled "Insignia, Rank, General of the Air Force, Gen. Henry "Hap" Arnold," NOT labeled General of the Army. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

On a green Army uniform. Hap Arnold never wore (to the best that we can tell) the blues uniform and never wore an Air Force rank on an Air Force uniform. Garuda28 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely the point of this discussion. I am stating that the only man to ever hold the rank only wore the insignia on he shoulder board with the seal of the US. The Air Force also adopted all Army officer ranks as their own. Therefore, the General of the Air Force shoulder board would have the seal of the US on it. As proof, I provided a photo and article from the Smithsonian Institute showing the shoulder board with the seal and labelling it as the General of the Air Force rank. It is green because the Air Force didn't adopt a new blue uniform different from the Army until the early 1950s. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We have other RS showing how it would look on the blue uniform though. I’m not sure what you’re trying argue here? Garuda28 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the Smithsonian, the rank shoulder board for General of the Air Force includes the seal. The color of the jacket beneath doesn't matter. Is the Smithsonian not a RS proving the other RS are wrong? We have conflicting RS which brings me back to a comment I made how long ago in this discussion, we should just put the five star insignia without a shoulder board (US-O11 insignia.svg). That insignia is confirmed by the DOD and doesn't have any conflicting RS. Then, should another GAF be appointed, we can post whatever is on their shoulder boards. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Or we can just put the General of the Army insignia (US Army O11 (Army greens).svg) because that was the insignia used by the only General of the Air Force to be appointed with a note saying no Air Force uniform specific insignia was created (to be real the RS currently showing the General of the Air Force insignia on blue uniform are in the grand scheme of things, just speculation). Just like what is on the General of the Armies page which just shows four stars because General Pershing never wore more than four stars in his life, even though we now look at the rank of General of the Armies as either a five or six star rank. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the fact that prior to adopting its own insignia, the Air Force used the same as the army. And while correct, it is also ignoring the fact that the Air Force did in fact adopt a separate ranking system, which all provided RS reference. Additionally, Hap retired in 1946, suffered a stroke in 1948, before being "promoted" to 1949 (almost three years after retiring), only to die less than a year after that. While I am not saying it is impossible that the USAF designed, agreed upon said design and managed to send a uniform to HAP, in less than a year, I highly doubt it. This is of course the same time that the USAF was actively working to create its own distinct uniform, (with a completely different colour and button), making it even less likely. What is more likely, is the fact that Hap retired in 1946, with the army rank and uniform, was "prompted" in 1949, and when the uniform he had used were handed over to the Smithsonian, they said it was the air force uniform, since that was his last appointment. Lastly, we know there are 5 stars and we know the button and fabric used by the USAF, hence why the current image is fine. Like I have stated many times, if you have any WP:RS, you are welcome to post them. Otherwise, feel free to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I for one, will not continue this discussion. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Air Force adopted their own enlisted ranking system but not their own officer insignia. I love how your reliable sources are correct but the one I mentioned (the Smithsonian Institute, part of the US Government) just "said that it was the Air Force insignia," but they are wrong. We do know there are five stars, we do know the fabric, and we do know the button, but by putting the shoulder board without the seal you are definitively saying it does not have the seal. This is still speculation as the rank insignia for the shoulder board has never officially been presented by the US government. Therefore, the current image should be replaced with what we know 100% is correct, what we all agree on, and what is on the DOD website (US-O11 insignia.svg) instead of what you "think is fine." Wikipedia should share the truth, not what one editor thinks is fine. I'm trying to come up with a compromise , but if you don't want to compromise, that reflects worse on you than anyone else. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@68.x, when you have only two people, a compromise is a potential outcome, but when you have multiple editors, then a consensus is the optimal outcome. In this case, I have to agree with Skjoldbro, Garuda28, Venqax and Officer781, and therefore is seems we have a consensus wrt to the shoulder board. I understand this is of great importance to you, but there comes a time, especially on Wikipedia, when you have to let things go and move on. Good luck to you - wolf 22:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take this over the Smithsonian-- from Barry L. Spink, Senior Archivist, Air Force Historical Research Agency: The US Coat of Arms that you see on the shoulder strap is not a part of the actual rank insignia, but is an added item to the uniform denoting the wearer’s leadership status; but to emphasize, it is not part of the actual rank insignia. Venqax (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is the case then it needs to be taken off the General of the Army rank insignia. The point is to show how it would appear on the shoulder board. You just proved my point that it would be worn on the shoulder board. Thank you Venqax. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@68.14.208.126 - again, unless you can provide a clear consensus in support of your edit, you can't re-add it. Adding your interpretation of a single reply may "prove a point" in your mind, but is still not a consensus. Meanwhile this discussion is dragging on. I would again sugggest you let it go, but if you really feel you must continue to pursue this, then perhaps you should try dispute resolution. - wolf 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Venqax agrees that the seal should be worn on the shoulder board if I understand him correctly. That means the two of us agree while Skjoldbro and Garuda28 disagree. That is not a consensus in my opinion. Therefore the discussion should continue. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly what they said, meanwhile, consensus isn't a vote, and a lack of consensus doesn't mean that you keep that just keep trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process until you have enough people agreeing with you. A lack of consensus means that you stop beating this dead horse and move on to something else. - wolf 21:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #1)

I left it alone and then Venqax came along and said the seal should be worn on the shoulder board but made the comment that it isn't part of rank insignia. I agree with that. Therefore, if Wikipedia shows the shoulder board it should include the seal, or we should just show the stars without the shoulder board. If the two of us say that the seal belongs on the shoulder board and two do not think that, that is not a consensus at all.

Regarding your bludgeoning comment, I've been trying to make my point and the other two have simply stated "you have no argument and your sources (The Smithsonian) are not reliable." How is that a valid discussion. Why can't I simply state their sources aren't valid and put what I think is right up on the page and state that it is by consensus? That is what they have done. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Not that I agree with you, but let's (hypothetically) go with your take your position that there is "no consensus" here; you were seeking to make a change to content, your changes were reverted/challenged, so those involved then came to the talk page and discussed. After lengthy discussions, there is no consensus (aka support) for your change, so the article stays as it was, at WP:QUO (see status quo ante bellum). The best thing you can do now is leave it be. You can't keep trying to drag this on and on... it's disruptive. - wolf 01:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that while the seal isn't part of the rank, it would be worn on the shoulder board as demonstrated by the National Air and Space Museum, just like with the General of the Army rank. Officially only the five stars is the rank, but it is worn with the seal on the shoulder board. That is why when you go to General of the Army (United States), it shows the shoulder board with the seal and labels it "Army service uniform shoulder strap with the rank of General of the Army." In the interest of uniformity, the shoulder board on the General of the Air Force page should show the seal. If everyone is deeply opposed to having the seal, I think what @68.14.208.126 said about just putting the five stars without a shoulder board makes sense. Master Editor 10 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a source (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/posters_1949-2013/20150806_14-1745_Uniforms-United-States_1963_ENG-FRE_HR.jpg) that shows it without the seal. The Smithsonian one is an Army rank from the 1940s. The NATO chart is from 1961. The desire for uniformity cannot overrule sources. Moreover, if we do include the seal, would it be gold (as the Army one is) or silver (which the Air Force has used in all other cases)? Garuda28 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Garuda28, and moreover, if there is a desire for "uniformity", then the epaulette (without seal) should remain as the other rank articles also have images with epaulettes. The arguments being put forth here to include the seal (or remove the epaulette altogether) are basically WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and are lacking a consensus. I'll say again that this discussion is really dragging on now (for over 3 months!), it's time to give it a rest and if the editor(s) seeking this edit persist, without providing any new sourcing that clearly supports the edit they seek, then perhaps a close request for this thread should be posted at WP:RFCL to finally end this dispute. (imho) - wolf 13:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of uniformity is that Venqax stated that the seal on the General of the Army shoulder board isn't part of the rank insignia but is a symbol of the General's leadership status. Even so, it is still included on the General of the Army Wikipedia page as part of the shoulder board. Following that same logic, the General of the Air Force shoulder board should have the seal. If we want to make the point that it isn't part of the rank insignia, then it needs to be taken off the General of the Army page because it isn't part of the General of the Army rank insignia. If everyone can accept that the seal isn't part of the the rank insignia of the General of the Army but it is still worn on the shoulder board, everyone can except that about the General of the Air Force, because according to the Smithsonian, the seal is worn on the shoulder board. Master Editor 10 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If I read everything correctly, 68.14 already explained how that NATO poster is not a valid and trustworthy source. It makes obvious mistakes on other ranks (Air Force WO3 and WO4). The Smithsonian picture is clearly labeled as General of the Air Force. I love how you all are smarter than the Smithsonian and know they are wrong. Maybe they should just close down all those museums in DC because the Wikipedia editors know better. There's no better source than a Government started and funded museum and educational institution, who clearly labels the shoulder board with the seal as General of the Air Force. Master Editor 10 (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Master Editor 10. That's what I've been trying to tell them. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Master Editor 10: "I love how you all are smarter than the Smithsonian and know they are wrong. Maybe they should just close down all those museums in DC because the Wikipedia editors know better." - an attitude like that will get you no where. You should give WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE a read, and you need to remember to focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. After that, read the differences between WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sourcing, (along with all the links that have already been included in all the responses in this thread... they are useful). Then finally, consider moving on to other articles in need of improvement. Leaving this page as is, is not the WP:ENDOFTHEWORLD. - wolf 18:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm to make a point. That wasn't an attack and you know it. There is no proof that the Smithsonian is wrong, while it has been proven that the NATO poster is wrong. Those are the only two sources we've all seen in this conversation. According to Wikipedia guidelines we have to trust @Skjoldbro's sources show without the seal, but the only thing we can all verify is the shoulder board with the seal. Therefore the Wikipedia article should show the seal on the shoulder board. Master Editor 10 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with everything wolf has said. Master Editor 10, I would like to point out a little issue with the ONE source that this whole argument is based on. Per the Smithsonian website itself: "This uniform was worn during World War II, by Gen. Henry "Hap" Arnold commander of the Army Air Forces during the war. The coat adorns two unique items, the "Aviator" badge that Arnold designed with Thomas Milling in 1909 and the five star General of the Army rank insignia." As stated multiple times by myself and others, if you have any OTHER sources, please present them. Otherwise, Just drop it or take it somewhere else. Refusing to accept it is not constructive in any way. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was his WW2 uniform, but when the air force became a separate branch they used the Army uniform until the late 40s early 50s when they just changed the color from tan to blue. Therefore that was also his Air Force uniform. Why would the Air Force have all of a sudden dropped the seal from the shoulder board when they changed the color of the coat. I would like to see some OTHER sources that verify the shoulder board without the seal. You not providing other sources and refusing to actively participate in the conversation and instead just telling me and 68.14 to "just drop" it isn't constructive. Master Editor 10 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Master Editor 10: "It's called sarcasm to make a point. That wasn't an attack and you know it." - I will ask again that you keep your comments focused on content, and not your telepathic proclamations of what you claim I do or do not "know". I will also, again, ask that you read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

Also, you wrote: "I would like to see some OTHER sources that verify the shoulder board without the seal." - aside from the problem with requesting that someone prove a negative, the WP:ONUS is on you, as the editor seeking to add content, to provide sound, reliable sourcing to support your requested edit, not the other way around.

And finally, you wrote: "You not providing other sources and refusing to actively participate in the conversation and instead just telling me and 68.14 to "just drop" it isn't constructive.". - Erm, no... we have been "actively engaging, (and humoring, and educating) in this discussion for over three months now, and have been persistently met with either WP:IDHT and/or WP:IDLI arguments.

You and 68.14.208.126, as the ones seeking to add content, need to provide sourcing and you need a consensus in support, but have failed on both counts. Enough is enough. Try reading any of the links attached to the "just drop it", or "let it go" or "stop beating the dead horse with that stick" suggestions... those links exist for a reason.

So I will again suggest you move on to something more productive or I will request that an admin either close this discussion, or semi-protect this article, (or both). It's not just the never-ending, circular debate on this talk page that is an issue, but also the persistent, slow edit warring on the article that is disruptive and tendentious, and needs to end. Thank you - wolf 03:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for 68.14, but I don't want to add content, I want to edit content currently up back to what it was earlier. You say this debate has been going on for three months, but I just joined the other day, and from what I see, 68.14 only started it a week or two ago. Maybe there was more I don't know about? I believe there is enough source to edit the content currently up, not add content, back to what it was a few months ago (according to edit history), the shoulder board with the seal. The comment about refusing to participate was to @Skjoldbro only. It looks like he has commented three times in the whole discussion, the first time to share a source, the second to state he will no longer participate, and the third to just tell us to drop it. That isn't participating like you and @Garuda28 have been. Master Editor 10 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Originally the article had the shoulder board with the seal. It looks like it was changed solely on the NATO poster, which has been proven an invalid source. Therefore, that edit should be undone with the shoulder board with seal put back on the article. No one is trying to add anything here. Now according to Wikipedia, we have to trust @Skjoldbro's books, but the only source I have seen and can verify is the Smithsonian. So if we have two conflicting sources, it should be returned to what it originally was, right? 68.14.208.126 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The NATO poster had not been proven as invalid. Unless you provide a modern reliable source (post the Air Force getting its own uniform) this is effectively over. Garuda28 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The NATO poster clearly makes a mistake on the Air Force WO3 and WO4 ranks. If it makes a mistake (one we can verify) on those ranks it can't be trusted on anything else. I think a reliable source should be provided to show the shoulder board does not include the seal. If not, this is effectively over and I will revert back to the original shoulder board on the article, the one with the seal, as there isn't enough proof it doesn't contain the seal. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The poster flips CWO3 and CWO4. It also makes the same mistake with the Army ranks, yet shows differences with the GA/GAF ranks regarding the seal. Consensus is that the GAF rank does not include the seal and that the NATO chart is largely reliable. If you continue to edit war you're just going to get reverted, the page protected, and possibly blocked. That's one path. The second path is that your provide a RS that proves, definitively that the GAF rank has the seal and what the seal looks like (now I personally like the look of the seal, so I would love to be convinced here that the seal is on the GAF rank). The choice is up to you. Garuda28 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As you stated the NATO poster has mistakes. How can we definitively say part of it is right or that it is largely reliable when we know some of it correct. If there are known mistakes, it can't be a reliable source. Therefore I have yet to see a reliable source that shows it doesn't include the seal. Under that premise, it should be reverted back to the shoulder board with the seal because the source for the original edit to remove the seal is invalid.

Also, the Smithsonian shows the jacket (with seal on the shoulder board) and labels it as General of the Air Force. Yes the jacket is green, but that is because the Air Force used the Army uniforms until the early 50s. Therefore while he was a General of the Air Force, Hap Arnold would have worn the green jacket with five stars and the seal. If we really want to be accurate, I guess we should just put the green General of the Army shoulder board up because that is the only insignia ever worn by a General of the Air Force. With that it could include a foot note that states "There is no definitive proof of what the shoulder board would look like on the blue uniform." Master Editor 10 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

👏 I couldn't agree more @Master Editor 10. 68.14.208.126 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #2)

I found this skimming through Wikipedia.

File:GenArmiesCrossService.jpg

It is an drawing credited to an employee at the US Army Institute of Heraldry demonstrating the possible shoulder board insignia for six star ranks in each service. It shows the silver Seal of the United States on the Air Force insignia. That means the Institute of Heraldry presumes that a silver version of the seal would be worn on the shoulder board for General of the Air Force, right? Why would it not be there on the General of the Air Force but then re appear on a six star rank? I will admit I can't find that image anywhere outside Wikipedia but it was uploaded to Wikipedia by @Skjoldbro. Master Editor 10 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The original image was uploaded by User:OberRanks, who was banned for fabricating sources. Garuda28 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I just saw @Skjoldbro's name under file history. I didn't realize it wasn't him who originally uploaded it. He did upload to Wikipedia commons, right? Am I reading that history page correctly? I do not know who Ober Ranks is or that he is banned. I simply asked about a file I saw while reading the six star rank article that I thought might pertain to the discussion we are having. I did admit I wasn't sure if it was a valid source because I couldn't find it off Wikipedia. Master Editor 10 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why we have the policy: WP:SYNTH. I again have to ask: have you read that? I have also previously linked the policies WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, the guideline WP:IDHT and the essays WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:DTS, and I will ask if you have read each one of them, because they all apply here to this discussion, regarding both the content being debated and your behaviour. If you haven't, then please read each one them, consider the fact that you don't have adequate sourcing for the content you are seeking to add/re-add, nor do you have a consensus in support of any such addition/re-addition. Thank you - wolf 19:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My post is from the office of the official Historian of the Air Force. Yes, it is "smarter" than the Smithsonian on this issue, because it is, by definition, the authority. The Smithsonian picture is irrelevant. Arnold was GAF, but NOT at the time of the picture. He was still a GA at that time, and ALL the time he was on operational duty. He was promoted to GAF after his retirement and never wore an AF uniform or insignia. The Smithsonian picture is misleading, at least, while not actually wrong. You could, with equal accuracy, show the famous portrait of George Washington and label it "General of the Armies G. Washington". He got that rank in 1976. He didn't have it when his picture was painted. I never said the seal should be included in the GAF picture. It should not be. The seal is not part of the rank insignia. So was it "worn" on the shoulder board (stap-- they were/are not hard boards)? Marshall, Bradley and Arnold wore it. MacArthur did not. I think Eisenhower sometimes did, but not always. None wore it on the collar or the cap, and it is not part of the official Army shoulder "board" (passant) on the blue ceremonial dress coat. In the case of the GAF, it was never worn at all, as the rank has never been held by an active officer. So maybe what the shoulder board (strap, really) "was" for GA is open, but what it "is", officially, for GAF would be without. In the Army, BTW, general officers traditionaliy had the perogative of altering their uniforms, including insignia. Hence the variety. The Ike jacket, the Bradley jacket, the MacArthur and Patton constumery. Venqax (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Master Editor 10: Why, so many months later, would you try to slip in and quietly attempt that edit again? You left no edit summary, or added any new sources. Nothing has changed here in this discussion regarding consensus or sourcing, and you didn't post anything here at the same time as this edit either. Do you have anything new to add in support of your edit? - wolf 19:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: first off, nobody should be trying to get around consensus like that. I'm disappointed to see that this is still happening. It does look like the Air Force dropped its first new rank chart in a while and it shows it with the seal (https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Airman_Development/PurpleBook.pdf). Also shows the Navy's SEAC rank as well, which I haven't seen before. Garuda28 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Garuda28: If you're satisfied with that, then it'll be nice to bring this 3¾ year epic thread to a close... - wolf 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That is why I changed it. I should have put a link to that pdf somewhere, and that is my fault. But now according to the air force, the shoulder board for general of the air force has the seal. Could one of you change it on the article? If I end up changing it again, multiple users will just revert it assuming I am continuing the edit war. Master Editor 10 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not satisfied with the source, and I see a number of issues with it, mostly due to the fact that it appears WP:CIRCULAR.

• Firstly, none of the official website ever show shoulder boards, but only the collar/metal:
  • US DOD
  • AF.mil
  • airforce.com
• Secondly, the rank insignia shown is clearly the previous design which was used on wiki, as the shoulder boards are too pointy and clearly artistic compared to the USAF use. USAF O-10 for image ref.

Furhtermore, the table looks like an Airman was tasked with something that s/he neither had the skills nor cared much about, and went online to find images:

1. Star ranks (O-9 and O-10) are clearly compressed.
2. The Army ranks are shown as dress insignia, while Marine and Air force are shown as service insignia.
3. USMC and USAF ranks are the wrong direction compared to USA and USN.
4. USN W-ranks are taken from the DOD website, but not O-ranks. They also look like they have been taken from wiki.
5. The top Warrant officer table shows issues with formatting, or something has been overlain after the fact.

This is of course all compounded by the fact that there are multiple Reliable sources, which all state that the insignia doesn't have the seal. It would also surprise me very much, if after more than 70 years the insignia is changed, without any announcement but only placed in a (IMHO) shitty table in an appendix. I'm still not seeing any overwhelming (or even "whelming") evidence that supports the position of changing the insignia. This discussion is getting tiresome, the horse is now ground meat. Unless multiple reliable sources are presented, I will remain unconvinced and regard a continued push for change as disruptive. As Wolf stated, this discussion has been going on for far too long. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

References

If your argument is "none of the official websites show the shoulder boards," why are we putting shoulder boards on the Wikipedia page. Also, an official doctrine book released by the US Air Force signed by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force is clearly a reliable source. You just assume the airman "was tasked with something that s/he neither had the skills nor cared much about, and went online to find images" without proof but trust two random authors that don't work for the US Air Force are correct. If the airman just went online, how did s/he come up with the Navy Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman rank? That hasn't been posted anywhere on the internet that I can find. Also, how can you state that "after more that 70 years the insignia is changed?" I thought we came to the conclusion that the insignia was never worn on a uniform as Hap Arnold was already "retired" and too old, so how has it changed? Even if we went with the argument that it "changed after 70 years," that isn't necessarily a argument against. The military is ever changing and evolving. Look at the rank insignia from the early 1800s compared to now.

If the US Air Force releases official doctrine showing the rank insignia, I don't see how we can argue that. They are, after all, the final authority on their own rank insignias. Master Editor 10 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, Skjoldbro does make a compelling case in evaluating this source. Perhaps the infobox image should be left as is... - wolf 18:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand how we can say the US Air Force is not a reliable source with regards to US Air Force ranks. If they aren't a reliable source for their own information, no one can be. Master Editor 10 (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It makes for better content when sources are evaulated as opposed to just blindly accepting them as face value. Also, you are putting a lot of stock into the idea that this information comes from an AF source, you should read WP:PST. It would help your position if you had some secondary sourcing to support the changes you seek. That, and a consensus, of course. - wolf 18:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is an Air Force pamphlet available on doctrine.af.mil. It is signed by the CSAF and the CMSAF. If that isn't from an AF source, I don't know what is. I explained why Skjoldbro's evaluation is not a fair evaluation of the source. If you review the source, there is no reason it is not a reliable source. Also, we should be seeking the truth not a consensus. When the AF publishes official doctrine with information on AF ranks, that takes precedence over our opinions and our consensus, right? This is an encyclopedia, not a public opinion blog. Master Editor 10 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Oy... now I can see why this has dragged on for almost four years. "Also, we should be seeking the truth not a consensus." - Consensus is one our core policies and a part of the five pillars, the cornerstones that helped build this project, and if you're seeking "truth", you're in the wrong place (see verifiability, not truth). It might be getting to the point where you need to let this go. - wolf 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A verifiable source, the US Air Force, has been provided for an article on US Air Force ranks. I'm not seeking truth necessarily, I just want facts posted on this page, not other's opinions. The fact is, according to the US Air Force, the shoulder board for the uniform of a General of the Air Force has the seal of the United States above the five stars. Master Editor 10 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we come to a compromise. We all agree that the metal insignia is the five stars. Why don't we remove the shoulder boards all together. Remove the controversy from the page all together. Just put the five star insignia and call it a day. US-O11 insignia.svg 68.14.208.126 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Compromise is unnecessary here since there is nothing to compromise on. I'm inclined to agree with Skjoldbro that this document took its images from Wikipedia – that lowers its credibility in this specific area. If the Air Force comes out with something a little more official (and not taken from Wikipedia), the I will change my opinion. As for why keep the shoulder board – because it is consistent with all the other ranks, and we know what that looks like (and it will continue to be used on rank charts). As far as I am concerned, this is closed. Garuda28 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof that the document "took its images from Wikipedia." If so, where did they get the insignia for a Navy Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman? Also, there are minor differences between the images on Wikipedia and the images used in the handbook. It is clearly not a copy paste deal. The Air Force did release "something more official." They released an official doctrine pamphlet, which shows the seal on the shoulder board. I too agree that the shoulder board should remain on the article, but correctly with the seal on it. Master Editor 10 (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for far too long, with editors not listening to what is being said. As such, I have reported this discussion to Administrators' noticeboard. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived

After almost 4 years, the time has come to archive this discussion. Of seven or so editors involved, there has been a consensus among at least five editors, regarding the current edit for some time now, however this discussion has been continually dragged on seemingly by a pair of editors in opposition to the consensus. But, as it turns out, this wasn't a pair of editors, but a single editor who was sockpuppeting. With the SPI closed, the disruptive editor blocked and a consensus in place, it's time to bring this looonng thread to a close. Should another editor, or editors, wish to open a new discussion by bringing new and conclusive sourcing to the talk, they are of course free to do so. - wolf 18:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

More of the same

@Morinao, Neovu79, Garuda28, and Thewolfchild: Sorry to keep bothering you guys, but the ghost of OberRanks still haunts. As part of his "rewrite" of this page, Ober added most of the current text. All of this is, of course, either completely unsourced or sourced with what is most likely fabricated sources. As it stands right now, there is 4-6 lines in the body which are actually sourced and can be used, and is mostly related to the "Modern usage". Relating back to the discussion on General of the Armies, this also effects the insignia, since this has also be uploaded by him. I'm at a loss. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I'll try to do some digging around tomorrow and see what can be verified. If it can't, I'll work on cutting it. Garuda28 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I think I've purged it of all problematic issues. I found nothing of the mention of LeMay at all. Garuda28 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Great job! Yeah, I had a feeling about LeMay and everything related to him. It is too bad that these pages are plagued with so much misinformation/unsourced material. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy

Is not this a five star rank, like General of the Air Force? 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:D480:C5EF:A2D6:F1C4 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Navy counterpart is Fleet admiral (United States)Garuda28 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Navy always has to do things differently, it's only the Air Force that follows the army with generals. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Of the 8 Uniformed services of the United States, 4 use army ranks (Army, MC, AF & SF) and 4 use naval ranks (Navy, CG, PHS & NOAA). - wolf 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy is considered a one time honorific granted to an Admiral. A "4.5" star admiral if you will. The shoulder/collar insignia was four stars with two anchors under the outside stars. Fleet Admiral is officially recognized by the Navy as the senior rank in the Navy with five stars. Master Editor 10 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the Admiral of the Navy (AN) article, George Dewey is to this day the only officer appointed to the rank of AN, and the 4-stars-with-2-anchors insignia was unique to him. The US Navy however, subsequently sought to make this rank become equal to the six-star rank of General of the Armies, but the proposed bill to make it official did not get passed by Congress. That's not to say that it will never happen, there are constantly calls from all circles; military, academia, goverment, the public, etc, to expand and modify the ranks of the US military. - wolf 22:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now, according to law, the highest rank in the US Navy is Fleet Admiral. When Congress would not make Admiral of the Navy an official 6 star or even 5 star rank, the Navy was forced to recognize for the time being it as an honorary rank. That is why I said he is a "4.5" star rank. He was placed in a place of precedence above all other 4 star admirals, but by law is outranked by 5 star Fleet Admirals, at least until changes (if any) are made

I personally hope it is made equal to a 6 star rank, but that is a different discussion not for this talk page. Master Editor 10 (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)