Talk:Six-star rank/Archive 3

Suitable image

• 
  (1) Charles Peale Polk (1767-1822) - George Washinton at Princeton
• 
  (2) George washington charles peale polk.jpg
• 
  (3) George Washington cropped.jpg

We have lots of images at Commons:Category:Portraits of George Washington. There seem to be two versions of the painting at left, which I think suitable, but better still to crop the bottom one (2) a little (which is quite legal). Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the first looks best; clear view of his rank too. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this one? (3) The reason I chose the second version to crop is mainly, it doesn't cut the top of his head off. Andrewa (talk)

The one which shows the background (2) would be my choice: its a fine portrait, and the background helps to make the figure stand out, and also gives some feeling for context (is it The White House there?) In the article, it should be bigger (and MacArthur smaller), and the background may not be too visible, but a reader can enlarge to full size by a simple click. Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

+Not The White House. "Painted during the first term of Washington's presidency, this portrait heralds the triumphant General, his victories during the Revolutionary War and his ascendance to Father of the Nation." Different version of (1) --Qexigator (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Many thanks to those of you attempting to have a sensible discussion about this topic. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The article as now revised[1] informs readers about what Congress proposed, some opposing comment, what the President did, and the words used when that was reported in the press, as sourced from New York in the east to Eugene in the west. Given the limited scope of the article's topic, that seems to be an acceptable way to let readers inform themselves. Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And that's an improvement. Lots still to do. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the article

The topic of the article is a peculiarity of the USA concerning the putative insignia for a rank above five-star general. It is notable in connection with MacArthur, for whom the rank was proposed in his lifetime, and Washington for whom the rank was awarded posthumously. There has been no occasion for use of a six-star insignia for either of those generals. But MacArthur's achievement as a soldier in the service of his country has instead resulted in a lasting memorial, as shown in the image (another such is at West Point), while the two other images can be seen as representing the purpose for which MacArthur and other such soldiers were deployed in the service of their country: to secure for the people the constitutional protections exemplified by the freedom of the press across the Union, which most would agree has greater significance than an inauthentic design for a non-existent six-star rank. Qexigator (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Six-star rank", not "American six-star rank". The scope of this article shouldn't be limited to the United States, and especially not to the US Army. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an important issue and has consequences elsewhere. See talk:Five-star rank#Scope of this article.

The claim that Washington's rank is six-star is a bit shaky. It's widely assumed to be so (and there are sources for this, so it does belong in this article), but it has never been officially stated to be such AFAIK, and is not likely to be, as if ever they need a seven-star (or greater) rank, the intention is that Washington would still outrank its holders. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

1_It could be that this is retained as a stand alone article under the name "American six-star rank", while another article of wider scope is developed. 2_But, meantime, if Washington's rank as six-star "is a bit shaky", then the present article needs to be revised before going much further with this. 3_Of the images readily viewable at George Washington, the most appropriate may be Washington at the Signing of the United States Constitution?[2] If preferred, let that go in now and replace the ones for Eugene and NYT. Qexigator (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree to that? There seems no good reason to split this article, and that's going from one extreme to the other, considering it was proposed for deletion not so long ago and is still proposed for merge.

So I would prefer first to scope this article to match its current title, and then see whether a split is still required. Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Qexigator: 1) No, we can just expand this article. 2) We can continue to improve the George Washington section, but I don't see why we can't expand the article at the same time. 3) Why not use File:General George Washington Resigning his Commission.jpg? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as to scope and expand, I'm easy if editors want to go that way. Why Signing US Constitution? As a picture more colourful, lively and interesting, and has an outlook through the window panes; as a scenario, shows the flags, with martial drum, but shows what the fight had been for - a constitutional federal republic, able to expand in territory and form and admit new states to the Union under the laws of the new constitution, and also shows Washington moving from acclaimed soldier to first POTUS. Qexigator (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think an image of Washington in uniform would be more appropriate, as the section is about his rank. Although with your desire for a "meaningful" picture, why don't you find one of him in uniform that you prefer? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at the image you proposed, see left, and you can't be serious. No, I think you are.

So at the risk of preaching, I'm going to react at some length to the reasons you have put in two posts now for proposing this image.

Years ago I visited a military museum in Salzburg with a companion who spoke and read German fluently. There were many displays from World War II, and the captions were in both German and English... but they didn't quite match. Reading the English captions, you wouldn't have known that Germany had lost the war, but they were very cleverly done so that the omission was not obvious, unless you also read the German captions. Reading the German captions, you'd think they had won, and suddenly the omissions from the English versions became obvious too.

I've never visited Russia, but my parents have, and my mother (who had also previously visited the Salzburg museum) asked the tour guides to translate the Russian captions in the museums there, in which World War II again featured prominently. It was much the same deal, the captions for example made no mention of Australia and the USA having been involved. There was even a cleverly cropped picture of the Japanese surrender, and reading the Russian caption you would have thought that they were surrendering to Russia, on a Russian warship. When my mother pointed out to a guide that Australia and the USA had also participated in the defeat of both Germany and Japan, she was not believed. "If that were so, we would have been told" one said... those are the exact words the guide used. That at least explained why the guides were so willing to translate the more "informative" Russian captions.

Wikipedia is different. We are not here to celebrate the glory of one country, but the glories and otherwise of the whole of human endeavour, as expressed in human knowledge.

There are places to express your patriotism. You can even do so here, but only by displaying confidence that the whole NPOV truth will show the USA in a good light. As I think it does (Wikipedia and the Internet for example are both American inventions, after all). There is no need to hide the warts, or to inflate US ranks to match the laughably inflated ranks of say North Korea. Instead join us in the laughing, even if it sometimes means laughing at some of your own countrymen.

I'm afraid some of them deserve it, as do some Germans, and Russians, and some of my fellow Australians. Don't join them. Andrewa (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said, well said! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Andrewa has failed to notice that his (her?) personal point of view (actually, self-regarding and quite humourless) skews his understanding to the point of making false ad hominem-ish suppositions about another editor. Yes, my reasons for preferring, of the two, not the Rotunda picture, but Signing US Constitution were given in response to his Stg's question, and remain my npov. Nothing he has written, including disclosing that he is Australian, responds to my comments about the picture as such. But he has written at some length on the assumption that my remarks about the American constitution etc are attributable to the patriotism he would seem to resent in an American (of USA). Wrong, completely, and no truer for being cheered by "assault rifle", self-described as a member of the US army. My remarks have been based on a neutral appraisal of the present content, not on a conjecturally expanded article of wider scope. I have addressed the question, Why has "six-star" rank been of such import for (US) Americans, as described in the article, in relation to MacArthur and to Washington. Is it not obvious that the answer must have something to do with the point of view of those very Americans? No one who takes the trouble, whether or not an American (USA), to consider the biography, actions, aspirations and accompanying political and military events, of those two persons need regard my remarks as other than a way of answering that question, objectively. Now, Andrewa could try looking again with that in mind, while subduing whatever happens to be the point of view of someone who prefers to think of (US) Americans and that country's origin and development in the sort of skewed, and often ignorant, light that some of them and others (Australian, German, Russian, Japanese...you name it) may have.

• Now, specifically, is there anything in the captions I have made that you, Andrewa, consider is unsuited to the present article? You are free to propose revision.
• My choice of picture was explicitly taken from those readily available at George Washington. He was notable in his lifetime, not only as an outstanding soldier in the service of the colonists against the king, but perhaps more as the first president of the new republic, which later MacArthur (like many others of all services and ranks) served in the name of "democracy", as the political rhetoric would have it. In the interest of NPOV, that can be acknowleged. He was not just another skilful general who helped his side to victory.

Qexigator (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My main opposition to this image is, to be blunt, that if a casual reader unfamiliar with American presidents came across this article, they wouldn't be able to pick Washington out of a crowd of similarly dressed men. Aside from that, this article is about his military rank (and no, I'm not brushing him off as "just another skillful general"); you even named the section "Lieutenant General George Washington" as opposed to "President George Washington", and don't go and change the section title just so you can keep your prefered image, per WP:POINT once again. And please, plainly lay out these ad hominem attacks that you perceive User:Andrewa has been making. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, while I appreciate that you actually took time to look over my user page, I don't see why you pointed out such things as the translation of my user name. On that note. I'm going to bed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"...reader unfamiliar with American presidents ... wouldn't be able to pick Washington out of a crowd of similarly dressed men." Fair comment, another image such as proposed above could be more suitable. But it is somebody else's turn to choose and make the change. Why not go ahead. Had you thought that your trans. of your user name is easier to understand than the red'n'black, and easier on the eye? I have already dealt with ad hominem and I hope my remarks will be sufficient deterrent against any more of it. Qexigator (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we possibly all use standard talk page stringing? Only use bullet points if there's more than one of them to list, and even then only if it makes the discussion a lot clearer. To reply, use a single extra level of indent. See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation for some examples, and these two rules in other words, with the second described in more detail. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, specifically, is there anything in the captions I have made that you, Andrewa, consider is unsuited to the present article? You are free to propose revision. I have no interest in the captions. It's the images themselves that are unsuitable. Remove the images, and no captions, and no problem. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My choice of picture was explicitly taken from those readily available at George Washington. He was notable in his lifetime, not only as an outstanding soldier in the service of the colonists against the king, but perhaps more as the first president of the new republic, which later MacArthur (like many others of all services and ranks) served in the name of "democracy", as the political rhetoric would have it. In the interest of NPOV, that can be acknowleged. He was not just another skilful general who helped his side to victory. But this article isn't about him. It's about a rank which some reliable sources claim he held, and most claim he didn't. The images you have included are 'way off topic. Simple as that. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving on

Images

I don't see any prospect of changing Qexigator's mind over the images for this article, but does anyone else object to removing the two images currently [3] there and replacing them with File:6 Star.svg, File:Douglas MacArthur 58-61.jpg and File:George Washington cropped.jpg? Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the revised version[4] is an inprovement, but may need some format tweaking? Qexigator (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I propose a new lead paragraph A six-star rank is an extremely senior rank corresponding to OF-11 in the NATO rank scale. It is unclear whether any serving officer anywhere in the world has ever held so high a rank.

Comments? All welcome on this one. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The present lead must have been carefully crafted due to the doubts about "six-star", and the proposal above less so. But it raises the question whether NATO OF-11 is any more real than six-star. All I have found is File:Army-FRA-OF-10.svg[5], seven stars but OF-10: "badge of rank of maréchal (Marshal) of the French Army", linked from Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers. It may have been said already, that we should not let the article appear to give more credence to a figment than it deserves. Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have said it already, almost on a daily basis.

So I take it, you oppose any change to the lead on the grounds that it's already carefully crafted?

The present lead simply does not match the topic. That's been pointed out above. For a start, other militaries can and arguably have used a six star rank. We need to cover these too.

Wikipedia does not exist to give... credence to a figment, but that's not what this article, or the content you seem so determined to delete, remove, merge, or otherwise eliminate, is about. This about sourced facts that people will reasonably come looking to find. We exist to help these people to find these facts.

And yes, the US military and their political masters have played some strange games in terms of higher ranks. But we should not just follow their line. We draw from all reliable sources, from all parts of the world, not just from their handbooks and press releases.

But thanks for the comment. I did say all welcome. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

General of the Armies

All in all, is it not time to reconsider merge with (US) General of the Armies? What little is here and not there could easily be inserted. This title could be used for anything else that is available (such as?), with cross-links in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

+As from the revision "Preparing for expansion",[6] the article has one main heading "In the United States" and two subheadings, each with a single paragraph about a general and a lieutenant-general of the USA army, with information relevant to General of the Armies. As yet, there is nothing about other countries, except a mention in the lead of Ranks and insignia of NATO, which does not disclose anything about a six-star rank. Another editor proposed the two images of the two generals, and very well they look too. Is the proposal for expansion for real, or what? Qexigator (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the merge proposal should be discussed.

It's not expansion of the topic. It's just making the content match the topic described by the title, as was always the intention I think, [7] and in some cases restoring material that was removed for no good reason.

Oppose a merge. This is not just about that one rank. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you understood the point at issue yet? Why not proceed as you seem to propose: 1_Put the USA info about General of the Armies, that is, Washington and Macarthur, into that article, to the extent not already there. 2_ Add whatever was removed and could usefully be put back here. What is the problem? But where is this material and who is doing the editing. Without that, the notice "This article is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" is simply false, and should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy today, but after I get settled in about three hours I'll add a section for George Dewey under "In the United States" and start the section "In North Korea". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand. Now I just don't understand. You seem to think that the template has been there too long without action, and should be removed. I'm afraid that if this is correct, I think you're making an issue out of nothing.

Far better to criticise those who initiated the merge proposal, however long ago it was now, don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not staying up so late tonight, but I'll add more sections tomorrow afternoon. Can we remove the merge proposal now that I've adjusted the article to match its scope? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See #Merger and #Proposed closure. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"In France"

I honestly think Marshal of France should be at Five-star rank rather than here. And User:Qexigator, please don't put an image with an active wikilink in a reference; if you really must, then put it between nowikis, like so: <nowiki>[[File:Six-star rank.svg]]</nowiki>. I corrected the image, but I still oppose this section's inclusion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error while trying to position the image. Better now. The image relates to the general points in "Highest ranking" and NATO practice (heavily influenced by the major partner USA), that is, not above OF-10 even if insignia is seven star. This also shows that speaking of n...-star is often loose rather than formally correct, and a typically American usage, which is a theme of this article, discussed in more detail in the articles for American officers, linked in the US section. Qexigator (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

From the archives

In the interests of not reinventing the wheel (and following my earlier blunder of reinstating the six star insignia image without discussion) I've started wading through the archives of this talk page 1 2 3 (which are not as daunting as many talk page archives), and some of my finds are at User:Andrewa/six star insignia image. I guess comment at User talk:Andrewa/six star insignia image or here for the moment.

Lots of interesting stuff in the archives. I feature in many of these discussions of course, but was uninvolved in and unaware of some of the very most interesting as I've now discovered. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Would not further authentic information +image, if any, be better placed in MacArthur's article in the first place, with a short mention and link to it here? File usage[8] shows that the image is widely disseminated and we need not repeat it. It seems to have an undue fascination for many. Given the present content, which looks at the wider world outside USA, it would be strange to use the present article to propagate this, which may be of special interest to one country's domestic political history. Looking at the result of your diligent search, it seems not to be an image of the supposed original, and founded on nothing better than rumour and hearsay. My feeling is that it would take away some of the shine from the excellent photo-portrait of him which you found for us, which gives a fine impression of the commanding general and man of achievement looking the part. Why should we do that in this article? It would be like fans of a long dead film star banging on about a nomination for an Academy Award which never happened. Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In that this insignia was recognised in 1964, its interest is broader than just Macarthur. Its primary relevance is to the proposed US rank, not to this one person, although it does seem to come from his archives, either directly or indirectly. This is at least partly because he's the most recent serving officer proposed for such a rank.

Disagree that we need not repeat it just because it's widely disseminated, you could similarly argue that we need not repeat the image of the US flag, for example. (I'm sorry, but I must say this seems to be grasping at straws.)

We should make no judgement as to whether people have an undue fascination with this image (my emphasis). If it's verifiable and the subject of widespread interest, as I believe too, then it's clearly encyclopedic. I continue to be surprised that there is any doubt of this! In the archives, I point out that my whole reason for starting the page was actually this image. I had seen it in Wikipedia, couldn't remember where, spent some time searching and gave up. Months later I stumbled on it again, and that's when i set up the page, to make sure anyone else similarly searching could easily get to the information they wanted.

We don't judge why they want the information. We just do our best to provide the information they want.

Disagree that it's founded on nothing better than rumour and hearsay, it's based on material from the IOH, as has always been claimed and is now verified. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So we're finally going to reinsert the image? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in my view Andrewa's remarks amount to "grasping at straws", but we must acknowledge our opinions differ on this. I note that the "whole reason for starting the page was actually this image", which confirms that he has been angling for that all along and he may be less able to form an objective editorial judgment. We now have an article which could very well do without it, as my comment proposed. Of course, we aim to provide the information readers may want, but some readers have more of an appetite for trivia which many others would find spoilt the encyclopedic quality. It is about this that there can be bona fide differences of editorial opinion. Having made that clear, I will also point out that my substantive proposal has not been addressed: Would not further authentic information +image, if any, be better placed in MacArthur's article in the first place, with a short mention and link to it here? And let me add an invitation to let us see a draft text for the information which it is proposed to add, giving such credence to the image as would be encyclopedically appropriate. Qexigator (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

+Meanwhile, 3 images added.[9] --Qexigator (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is looking much better now, but still a ways to go. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Left, Right, Left... That makes a smarter parade of the 3 images.[10] Thanks Stg. Qexigator (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All I am angling for is to include encyclopedic material in an accessible fashion. And the other side is, of course, to remove material that is not encyclopedic.

The attack on my editorial judgement is of course ad hominem. Yes, it's sometimes difficult to keep from these, particularly when your own NPOV and even good faith have been questioned, and I have done this in accusing you of grasping at straws. I think there was some evidence of that in the post to which I was replying at the time... specifically, your argument that we should not have the six star rank sketch in this article because it appears elsewhere. I hope and believe that there is no evidence of my doing the same. It's not for lack of trying if I have failed to keep to my own standards on this, but it happens.

Agree that the article is still not in good shape. Terrible shape, in fact. There is much in it that does not belong there. There is at least one blatant omission. But both of these problems are largely if not entirely of your own doing.

(And there are also unsourced POVs, or if you like WP:OR. But this has always been a problem here. OR is a difficult line to walk on this topic, and the strong POVs associated with the topic don't help.)

Again I risk going into ad hominem territory here, but it needs to be said. You regard it as an article we could well do without, and always have. You regard a six star rank as a non fact. Or have you changed your mind? And if so, where did you tell us about this change of mind? Have I missed it?

And if not, why are you even editing an article for which you have repeatedly said you see no need in the first place? Why are you adding material to it that you have repeatedly said would be better placed in other articles?

Aren't there better ways of improving Wikipedia? Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the words of mine you have misquoted were: "I note that [Andrewa's] 'whole reason for starting the page was actually this image', which confirms that he has been angling for that all along and he may be less able to form an objective editorial judgment. We now have an article which could very well do without it..." that is the image. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I did indeed misread that comment. The rest of my reply stands.

Yes, my whole reason for starting the page was to give others the means of obtaining information ion this image. But it's not the only reason that this page should exist. I don't think it's necessary to repeat them here.

Your continued ad hominem attacks are not helpful, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

A recent spate of changes are in no way relevant to the subject "six star rank".

This topic has already been discussed, several times. (Read the archives). The result was to create highest military ranks.

There is nothing relevant (note: NOTHING) in recent edits that is not WP:OR.

If you disagree, discuss it here and get consensus BEFORE making further edits. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I am trying.

I'm not convinced that everything that has been added is OR, but agree much of it is.

I blundered in adding the six star image without discussing it first. I have apologised for that.

I also blundered in not scanning the archives for discussions after I last participated. I'm now trying to correct that, see User:Andrewa/six star insignia image.

But much of what has followed is not constructive at all. It is a raw nerve, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) President Ford signed today a bill that posthumously promoted George Washington to the rank of six-star General of the Armies so that the first United States President would stand above "all other grades of the Army, past and present."

No, he didn't. Just because some newspaper says something does NOT make it true.

There is NO SUCH THING as a six-star rank and/or a six-star general. If there is, I want someone to provide hard evidence from a reliable source - not just a throw-away comment in an abstract.

Also, where does the "all other grades of the Army, past and present." come from? It's the first time I've seen it; it's the first time I've seen a reference to "all other grades".

I want to see an official definition, from any government, saying that ANY of their ranks is a six star rank. Until I do, I don't see how any unreferenced comments about six-star rank, even in the NYT, are anything other than the equivalent of WP:OR.

Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for reliability - this sort of nonsense just adds evidence for someone wanting to illustrate the fact. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote in the NYT is taken direct from the legislation; see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_94-479. DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good!! Thank you!!!

Note, however, there is NO mention of six star rank. This is because is does NOT need to be a six star rank to stand above "all other grades of the Army, past and present."

To emphasise: Note that "The quote in the NYT (that) is taken direct from the legislation" refers to seniority. It does NOT refer to "six star rank".

(Hardly surprising, because: There is NO SUCH THING as a six-star rank and/or a six-star general.

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some newspapers have said that Washington's rank is six star is important and encyclopedic. It's one of the things that will bring people to this article title. We should provide them with the information they want.

Agree that Washington has never been officially proposed for or appointed to a six star rank. That is a nonsense. If a seven star (or even ten star etc) officer were to be appointed tomorrow, Washington's rank would already be superior to theirs.

(Although it's not clear to me whether he would therefore outrank them, as a serving officer... US five star officers are never retired except on their own request, remember, but there was doubt as to whether this would apply to Macarthur as a six star officer were he to be appointed to that rank. It's complicated, I think we all agree on that. Let's leave those details to later, and keep this just to Washington's rank, not his status.)

Or have I missed something?

That conclusion of mine that Washington's rank is not six star currently depends on primary sources. I think it just scrapes the WP:OR hurdle, but it would obviously be far better to have secondary sources for it. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Details of the nonsence

THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINS WHY THE RECENT ADDITIONS ARE BOTH WP:OR AND IRRELVANT TO AN ARTICLE TITLED SIX-STAR RANK.

A six-star rank is a mostly conjectural rank at the top of a country's rank chart for award to a pre-eminent military officer.

a) Mostly? Why not entirely?

It would be above OF-10 in the existing NATO rank scale if adopted.

Says who? (The quoted reference doesn't!!) i.e. WP:OR

In various countries, particularly the United States, general officer ranks may be referred to as "star ranks" for the number of stars worn on some rank insignia, ranging from one star upwards.

a) b) WP:OR c) Relevance??

A six-star insignia was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank of General of the Armies.

a)

Highest rankings

Main article: Highest military ranks

In most countries many nations the highest military ranks are classed as being equivalent to, and may be are officially described as, five-star ranks. But However, some have used or proposed ranks such as generalissimo which are senior to their five-star equivalent ranks.

a) Who made that up? That's not what Highest military ranks, (which chooses its words carefully), says.

[[:File:Army-FRA-OF-10.svg|75px|thumb|right|Insignia for a Marshal of France. On France becoming a founder member of NATO in 1949, the one- to five-star classification system became applicable to French military ranks.]]

a) b) Who made that up? i.e. More WP:OR.

In Australia

Main article: Australian Army officer rank insignia

Australia is not a member of NATO, and Australian Army officer rank insignia, like those of the British Army, make no use of stars. Since the end of the Second World War, the rank of General has been held only when an army officer is appointed as Chief of the Defence Force. The rank of Field Marshal, regarded as "five-star", is normally reserved for wartime and ceremonial purposes.

a) Who made that up? i.e. More WP:OR. b) Absolutely riddled with errors. Really, if it were relevant, all that was needed was to copy what already exists. That which is here is simply wrong. c) Note (again) that this article is called six star rank. Why does something that is MAINLY about four star ranks, with a passing reference to five star ranks, appear here?

In France

Main article: Marshal of France

A Marshal of France displays seven stars, but is graded OF-10 in the NATO classification. The last general to be made Marshal of France in his lifetime was Alphonse Juin (1952). Generals who were awarded the distinction posthumously (1952) include Jean de Lattre de Tassigny (d.1952), and Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque (d.1947).

a) Irrelevant. Absolutely NO mention of six-star rank.

In North Korea

a) Irrelevant. Absolutely NO mention of six-star rank. b) Riddled with WP:OR.

In the Soviet Union

a) Irrelevant. Absolutely NO mention of six-star rank.

In the United Kingdom

a) Irrelevant. Absolutely NO mention of six-star rank, (except for the WP:OR!!)

In the United States

a) Irrelevant. Absolutely NO mention of six-star rank, (except for the WP:OR!!) b) By-the-way, the article is about the rank - it is NOT about the people who may have held the rank - they have their own articles.

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree. It's a mess.

I probably don't agree with all the details, but let's start with the lead. If we don't get that right, it's no wonder that the rest of the article is messy. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Onward or backward?

May I declare a wish to abstain from the quarrelling intervention whose author appears to have struck himself out?[11] My position is to invite collaborative editors to let us go either onward with the version developed as at 11:31, 21 July 2014,[12] or to let that be undone as at 12:16, 21 July 2014[13] My comment above at 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC) applies: "... as to scope and expand, I'm easy if editors want to go that way". Qexigator (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not wishing to be difficult, But I don't understand.

a) I'm not "quarrelling". I'm pointing out that the recent changes are a) WP:OR b) Not relevant to an article with the title "Six-star rank". You have not addressed that issue.

b) I don't understand what "appears to have struck himself out" means.

c) let us go either onward with the version developed ... - Why? It is a) WP:OR b) Not relevant to an article with the title "Six-star rank".

I look forward to your clarifications. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My reply to that: 1_The tone is undoubtedly quarrelsome, and so is the indiscriminate blanking of the revisions, apparently by rollback or something to that effect. 2_The iinadvertent strike out has now been corrected. 3_In my view, for a person who reads more carefully, the text to which you object is consistent with my comment above "Why retain the image for a non-fact?" (13:09, 10 October 2013). Other editors may not agree with either of us. Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't wish to be disrespectful, but I asked you to clarify, and you have made no attempt to do so.

Hence, I shall ask again: I'm pointing out that the recent changes are a) WP:OR b) Not relevant to an article with the title "Six-star rank".

i) To me it is unquestionable that they are WP:OR. If you think otherwise, please explain.

ii) Please explain why/how the changes are relevant to an article with a title "Six-star rank".

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

By-the-way: To me, these changes seem relevant to the article "Highest military ranks". In fact, that article already contains some of the information that you placed here, and some of the other stuff you placed here looks (to me) that it would be a useful addition to "Highest military ranks". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This article should of course link to Highest military ranks, but six-star is not intrinsically the highest rank. It's the second (second only to Washington) highest rank yet proposed in the USA, and may be the highest yet held anywhere but that is unclear. Washington's rank, on the other hand, is explicitly superior to all others. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the permalinks to old versions of the talk page aren't all that helpful. Could you supply diffs instead, or at the very least permalink to the relevant section? Otherwise, it's not at all clear what you're talking about.

But quarrelling intervention whose author appears to have struck himself out is not terribly promising. We seem to be going from ad hominem argument to outright personal attack. You have elsewhere asked for calm reflection. Hear, hear. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

topic fork

"By-the-way, the article is about the rank - it is NOT about the people who may have held the rank - they have their own articles" Well if that is true then the current version that you've reverted to fails to meet your standard and should be deleted. We've been expanding this article for days, and you just now step in and undo it. If the entire article is OR (including the references), and the term "six-star general" is just complete bullocks, then why do we still have this article? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question/comment. It's midnight here - I will reply tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Short incomplete answer: I don't entirely agree with you.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another short incomplete answer:

We've been expanding this article for days, and you just now step in and undo it.

- It is not my fault that: 1) You have not read the talk page history. 2) You have expanded the article with WP:OR. 3) You have expanded the article with subject matter not relevant to the article topic.

- There is no requirement that editors look at Wikipedia every day.

Now, this time I am really signing off for the day (yesterday) and will reply tomorrow (later today). Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Close

In the interest of reason and good manners, I propose that this section "Onward or backward?" be deemed closed. Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Qexigator I am sure that you feel strongly that all the high military ranks and national practices you have been adding should be included here. However, the key with the Wikipedia is that we do not engage in original research and that everything should be capable of being backed up with references to reliable sources. If you can genuinely find reliable sources which state that rank x is a six-star rank then that would certainly be worth inclusion here. Otherwise I would ask that you apply your creative energies elsewhere. The highest military ranks would not be a bad place to start. Personally, I am looking for help on the List of British Army full generals and there are lots of other rank related articles needing attention. I think if we could all agree on strictly avoiding original research and sticking only to material that can be backed up with reliable sources then we would have a basis to close this section. Greenshed (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Greenshed, if you had read my comments above on this page you would have been able to avoid making mistaken assumptions about my feelings. I am not engaging in OR, something too often used as a slogan to secure a POV and discredit others. While I respect your apparent expertise and commitment to your chosen task, I regard your remarks above, insofar as addressed to me, misplaced, though undoubtedly well-meant. Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Qexigator:

1) If you think you are NOT engaging in WP:OR, then clearly, you have NOT read WP:OR. Please read it.

In the interest of reason and good manners, I propose that this section "Onward or backward?" be deemed closed.

2) In the interest of compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I suggest that you have no idea about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and that first, you re-read what Greenshed has said, and then, you should go educate yourself. Your response "I respect your apparent expertise and commitment to your chosen task, I regard your remarks above, insofar as addressed to me, misplaced, though undoubtedly well-meant." is a joke, not to mention incredibly arrogant, disrespectful and rude.

3) TWICE I have asked you:

i) To me it is unquestionable that they are WP:OR. If you think otherwise, please explain.

ii) Please explain why/how the changes are relevant to an article with a title "Six-star rank".

Where is your answer?

4) Your edits are disruptive. Please explain why I should not report you for disruptive editing?

5) The is some nonsense about me making a personal attack. I haven't. Please explain.

6) Further to 3), you CONTINUE to persist in WP:OR and irrelevant postings.

JUST SO THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY: PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THESE ADDITIONS HAVE TO DO WITH "SIX-STAR RANK".

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrewa:

But quarrelling intervention whose author appears to have struck himself out is not terribly promising. We seem to be going from ad hominem argument to outright personal attack. You have elsewhere asked for calm reflection. Hear, hear. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your posting. It seems like you are accusing me of something. If so, please explain. If not, please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Six-star" rank notable?

SUGGEST YOU READ THE TALK PAGE HISTORY. **EVERY** ONE OF THE POINTS REPEATED HERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED THERE AT LEAST TWICE

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A not too deep websearch does not reveal much about six-star rank, outside the current pages of Wikipedia. But editors may know that there is an article at "Unipedia" based on a deleted article at Wikipedia[14] which links to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 star rank"[15]" Perhaps we should pause to look at that (again), and then coolly and calmly reconsider whether the present version is worth retaining. The main reason for deletion was lack of sources, but one of the presently active editors favoured "Keep", and there were two others. The article at Unipedia is written in a lively and fluent style, and contains its author's remarks and commentary which, for the most part, seem to be fair and truthful, while not admissible for Wikipedia. But one comment is undeniable: no American has ever worn six stars (as an insignia of military/naval rank). One view in favour of retaining our present article would be that it is consistent with the knowledge that no American has ever worn six stars as an insignia of military/naval rank, given that:

• The lead begins "A six-star rank is a mostly conjectural rank at the top of a country's rank chart for award to a pre-eminent military officer. It would be above OF-10 in the existing NATO rank scale if adopted. In various countries, particularly the United States, general officer ranks may be referred to as "star ranks" for the number of stars worn on some rank insignia, ranging from one star upwards."(Maybe that could be more elegantly expressed.)
• At the end are three images, two showing four-star insignia worn by American top officers, and one captioned "Conjectural sketch for six-star insignia. No indisputably authentic image is available."
• The main text shows that the practice of NATO is to allow for grading up to five-stars, and no more.
• The text mentions that historically, under the now dissolved Soviet Union, Stalin "ranked as a Marshal of the Soviet Union from 1943". The article does not call this a five-star rank or above, but the inset image shows a single star for a rank of Generalissimus of the Soviet Union proposed for Stalin in 1945. The article on that topic tells us that a uniform was prepared for Stalin to use in the victory parade on 9 May 1947. The uniform was finished and presented to Stalin one week before the parade. However, after examining it, Stalin again expressed dissatisfaction. Then he took hold of the decree about the Generalissimus rank and declared: "I will never sign this decree. The Soviet Red Army only has Marshal as its highest rank". Thus, the subject of new rank would never be raised again.
• The article mentions that under an entirely different system peculiar to North Korea an honorific rank was awarded to Kim Il Sung on his 80th birthday, and later, in 2012, to his successor Kim Jong Il, on his official 70th birthday. The insignia in the inset image shows only one star.

In other words, the information and images of the current version of the article helpfully, and as far as we know according to available documentation, accurately, counters the supposition that in the real world there is or ever has been a rank with six-star insignia in the US system or other comparable modern military grading systems in use today. Qexigator (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources for the North Korean rank of Taewonsu said it was technically a "seven-star" rank. The next lowest rank, Wonsu, is considered a five-star rank, and the South Korean insignia for Wonsu literally has five stars. There's also the fact that the Marshal of France wears seven stars. How is that OR? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I say, let's get a good lead. If that doesn't establish notability, then there's a case for deletion or at least redirection.

I doubt that deletion is the answer. There are many reasons that people might search for this topic. The interest in it is self-evident, surely? Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Stars and insignia

The lengthy post that started this section again confuses star rank with insignia. The archives are chock full of such discussions.

How many times do I need to point out that this is nonsense. Outside of the USA (and even within NATO), many (perhaps most) five-star ranks do not have five stars on their approved insignia. Within the USA, in the past several officers have worn approved insignia of ranks superior to four star ranks that had four or fewer stars (I have worded that very carefully).

Can we lay this one to rest, please? Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No contest, but have you understood the purport of my remarks at the top of this section... "...coolly and calmly reconsider whether the present version is worth retaining..."? I am aware, as maybe most in this discussion are, of the distinction between star rank and insignia. Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The current version [16] is IMO well worth retaining, but can easily be improved upon. For a start the layout is not the best, and there is off-topic information that would be extremely confusing, even misinforming, to a newcomer.

I'm glad you're aware of the distinction, but I still think that you need to be more careful to bear it in mind in your posts. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Let us continue

I propose that we continue with the article on the following basis.

The purpose of an article on Unicorns is not to affirm that any such creature exists today, but to give information about the way and extent the term is understood to have originated and its current usage. Similarly, given that "no American has ever worn six stars as an insignia of military/naval rank", an article about "SIx-star rank" should let readers know at least the information listed below. The present version near enough contains or links to all that information; and as well, it gives some information about military ranks in certain other countries, so that readers can have some idea about how US n...star ranks may be compared with ranks in other countries. This version has information in or linked to it about:

• the use of "n...-star general" originates as an Americanism, for a reason than can be easily identified;
• the pre-eminent American general George Washington was, in his own day (before and after the American revolutionary war for independence from the kingdom of Great Britain), a three-star general;
• in the 20c. there came to be a top US military rank for serving officers known as four-star;
• in the 1940's the US government decided for certain reasons to award a five star rank to some top serving officers, and the insignia for the rank was actually five-stars;
• there has never been a US military rank having a six-star insignia;
• the adoption of a US "star-ranking" classification for the purpose of the NATO coding after 1949.

So far, I have seen nothing to show that the information in the present version seriously fails to give such information. Any editors who see an error or something missing are free to improve the article by revising in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean that to be an article outline, it's most unsatisfactory.

It gives undue emphasis to George Washington, who has never held a four, five or six star rank, even posthumously. He should be mentioned in this article, as his promotion to General of the Armies was falsely reported to be to a six star rank, but that's his only direct connection to the topic. He should be mentioned in highest military ranks, and this article should link there and it here. But that's all.

It doesn't even mention Macarthur, whose proposed promotion to a six star rank has been widely reported and discussed.

That's just for a start.

I'm very interested in your first point the use of "n...-star general" originates as an Americanism, for a reason than can be easily identified. What reason? What sources are there for this? I think it's true, and very relevant, and definitely belongs in the article if we can source it. I'd put it in the second paragraph of the lead section, in fact. But we need sources. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Look again: it does not purport to be an outline, nor to exclude any of the information in the present version[[17] Given the article content, origin as an Americanism is self-evident and no source is needed. An editor who sees an error or something missing in the present content is free to improve the article by revising in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not an outline? Then what is it intended to achieve?

Disagree that no source is needed. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

This article is titled "Six-star rank". None, (note: NONE) of the recently added information is about "Six-star rank". Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that "no American has ever worn six stars as an insignia of military/naval rank", an article about "SIx-star rank" should let readers know at least the information listed at "Let us continue", above. The present version near enough contains or links to all that information. Qexigator (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for at last responding to something.

However, your response does NOT address the issue: "NONE of the recently added information is about 'Six-star rank'".

So yet again I ask you: "How is ANY of this recently added data relevant to an article titled 'Six-star rank'".

Just to be clear, I do not understand how your response addresses my question. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still waiting for a response to this one, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a (preferably relevant) response ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Another question

Have you read the highest military ranks article? If not, I humbly request that you do so and then respond here. With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer to this, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a (preferably relevant) response ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"status quo for benefit of bona fide collaborative editing"

Nonsense! As I've said, read: WP:BRD, WP:OR, WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead again

From #Lede above:

A six-star rank is an extremely senior rank corresponding to OF-11 in the NATO rank scale. It is unclear whether any serving officer anywhere in the world has ever held so high a rank.

Probably not good to mention OF-11 unless we have a reference for it, otherwise it's speculation. But I think we can still improve on the current lead.

From the current article:

A six-star rank is a mostly conjectural rank at the top of a country's rank chart for award to a pre-eminent military officer. It would be above OF-10 in the existing NATO rank scale if adopted.[1] In various countries, particularly the United States, general officer ranks may be referred to as "star ranks" for the number of stars worn on some rank insignia, ranging from one star upwards. A six-star insignia was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank of General of the Armies. [18]

Several problems with this.

For a start, have we a source that says it must be at the top of a country's rank chart? I'm taking this to mean it's the top rank, if other meanings are intended then it needs clarification.

There's no reason that a six star rank must be the most senior position, and both the USA and North Korea might already be exceptions. So far as North Korea goes, our article on Daejang clearly indicates that it's a four star rank, but there are three levels above it: Chasu, then Wonsu and above that Taewonsu. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Wonsu is a six star rank and Taewonsu a seven star rank, if star grades can be applied at all. And perhaps in terms of the numbers in uniform that's not surprising either, see List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. In the USA, George Washington appears to have been posthumously promoted to a rank superior to six stars.

That's largely original research of course, and should not go into the article as it is. But it provides a powerful reason that the article should not say what it does without citing a good source.

Second problem: It's not only for the number of stars worn on some rank insignia that general officer ranks may be referred to as "star ranks". Many NATO countries have senior ranks that don't conform to this pattern. That sentence is at least misleading, and it could be argued that it's just plain false.

There's no single US rank called General of the Armies. There have been several over the years, each with its own insignia and position on the organisational chart. Macathur's proposed rank is the only one of these ranks to be unambiguously a six star rank. And that is not surprising either, as the other holders of possible six star ranks of the USA were all appointed to these ranks before there were any explicit five star ranks at all. To think of them as six star ranks when there was no five star rank, not even in theory, is a bit bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, all those points are well made. Is there somewhere a form of words to encapsulate the elusive but not quite illusory six-star concept? Or is it only to be found someplace where there are unicorns? Are you heading for reviving "delete"? Meantime, another editor is removing section by section information which illustrated the very fact that "six-star", whether or not represented by insignia for top ranking officers, has practically no existence in most countries. What, then, will be the need for retaining the article? Will you be proposing some other information to replace what is gone? Qexigator (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely encouraged by your response.

Basically, "six-star rank" was a proposal - an idea.

I can see why you might categorise it as a unicorn, but to do so would miss the significance of the idea/proposal/whatever and the historical relevance. In my undoubtedly biased POV, which, by-the-way, is shared by others (read the talk page archives), the proposal was a significant event - perhaps two significant events - in US military history.

What, then, will be the need for retaining the article? - To record the significant historical fact of this important event (these important events) in US military history.

Will you be proposing some other information to replace what is gone? - It is not "gone", it is in "highest military ranks", has been there for some time, and if it contains anything not already in that article, that article will benefit from the addition. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree "two significant events - in US military history" and should be presented as such. But the piece in HMR is a poor substitute for the "In United States" section with the images. I see the article is now locked as a result of your rash complaint, which you might have the decency to retract. When the time comes, let it either remain stand alone with suitable title, or be inserted in a place where its significance in US history is acknowledged, not just another instance of "Highest military ranks". Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me but you're a pugnacious personality who throws around accusations and opinions without basis, justification or explanation!

(And while we're at it: AND you REFUSE to answer reasonable and relevant questions, too.)

But the piece in HMR is a poor substitute for the "In United States" section with the images. - That makes ZERO logical sense. WHY (in your opinion) is highest military ranks not the best place? (By the way, I'll be astounded if you actually reply with a relevant answer!)

as a result of your rash complaint - Goodness gracious me! Quite obviously, you live on a different planet from most people. What you have stated is a lie. Henceforth, if you continue to make false statements, I will refer to them as lies, and refer to YOU as a liar.

which you might have the decency to retract. - Hypocrite! YOU, dear sir, might have the "decency" to respond to relevant questions. But I've yet to see any evidence of this.

When the time comes, let it either remain stand alone with suitable title, or be inserted in a place where its significance in US history is acknowledged, not just another instance of "Highest military ranks". - I don't understand. If your ego requires me to say "that's very clever of you" - OK - that's very clever of you. But what you have written doesn't communicate anything to me. (i.e. I don't understand.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Qexigator: Please read WP:Dick. It's entirely likely I will be making references to it, and it will enhance general communication if you are familiar with my references. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Declaration

I will declare a second time a wish to abstain from being drawn into a quarrelsome brawl. My position has been and remains to invite collaborative editors to let revisions of the kind recently made continue or to proceed otherwise, free from hectoring and false abuse. My comment above at 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC) was: "... as to scope and expand, I'm easy if editors want to go that way". Qexigator (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry sunshine, you don't get off that easily!

A) If you REALLY mean what you say:

1) Revert the article back to early July

2) Answer ANY of the questions (preferably all) that you have been asked.

B) I wish to abstain from being drawn into a quarrelsome brawl. - Quite clearly and obviously that is a false statement. If you REALLY meant it, you would NOT have engaged in the edit warring and disruptive editing behavior that you have engaged in.

C) My position has been and remains to invite collaborative editors to let revisions of the kind recently made continue or to proceed - How sad. Such edits are ENTIRELY contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you REALLY wish to invite people to collaborate in vandalizing Wikipedia, then I think you have missed more than a few points.

D) free from hectoring and false abuse. - Well, I warned you if you made false statements that I would call you a liar: Liar.

E) My comment above ... - Don't understand.

Meanwhile, I await your answer to ANY of the questions you have been asked. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

By-the-way: 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)

Waiting for your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert alert

Anyone here interested in proceeding with collaborative editing of any kind should be aware that another editor is proposing to revert once again to a version before the proposed expansion and images[19] The first sentence of that version is:

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars.

My understanding is that one thing agreed is that this is in need of improvement. Any offers? The second paragraph is about MacArthur, and the third about Washington.

The current version of MacArthur is:

In 1955, a six-star rank insignia and promotion to General of the Armies was proposed in Congress for Douglas MacArthur, then ranking as a General of the Army, but the proposal was shelved.[7][8][9] He was of five-star rank when he died in 1964.

7. Foster, Frank C. (2011) United States Army Medal, Badges and Insignias, Medals of America Press, ISBN 9781884452673, page 19 8. Weintraub, Stanley (2007) 15 Stars: Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 9781416545934, page 488 9. Korda, Michael (2009) Ike, HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061744969, page 190

The current version of Washington is:

In 1976, George Washington was posthumously awarded the American supreme rank of general of the armies, which was described in the press as a six-star rank.[10][11] At his death in December 1799, Washington was a three-star lieutenant-general.[12] Although Congress created a higher rank of General of the Armies in March 1799, President John Adams did not submit Washington's name for confirmation and so the rank was not awarded in Washington's lifetime.[10] Two hundred years later, as part of the United States Bicentennial celebrations, Congress passed a joint resolution on September 28, 1976, calling for Washington to be posthumously promoted to the highest possible rank above all other ranks in the United States Army forever.[10][12] President Gerald Ford signed the order on October 12,[10] with an effective date of July 4, 1976.[12] Representative Lucien Nedzi, who opposed the resolution, said the rank was "superfluous and unnecessary ... it is like the Pope offering to make Christ a cardinal."[10]

10. United Press International (October 12, 1976). "George Washington Wins Promotion to Six-Star Rank". Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon). p. 7A. Retrieved Mar 1, 2014. 11."Washington Gets Star". The New York Times. October 13, 1976. "President Ford signed today a bill that posthumously promoted George Washington to the rank of six-star General of the Armies" 12. Grier, Peter (March 2012) "The Highest Ranking", Air Force Magazine, vol. 95, no. 3

The current version[20] includes a set of six images:

Dewey, MacArthur, Washington, Insignia for U.S. Admiral of the Navy, General of the Armies insignia chosen by Pershing in 1919, Conjectural sketch for six-star insignia.

Would it be acceptable to let these be added to the revised version after the imminent revert? Qexigator (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It still seems strange to me to have an image of Washington in this article. The claim that he has ever been promoted to six star rank seems to be false. If this false belief were sufficiently widespread then that would certainly be worth reporting, but even the claim that two specific newspapers reported his promotion as being to six star rank seems to be false. One of the two (but by far the less well known of the two) might have, and at least one other has, but even so his connection to this topic, and it to him, is not very strong.

We have several surviving refs for the mistaken belief that he was promoted to six star rank, so I'm happy for that to stay, carefully worded to avoid WP:OR. But an image of him seems to be undue weight. The photo of Macarthur, yes, but Washington, no.

But I'm yet to be convinced that the proposed revert is an improvement. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position on this, but please clarify: is the premise that factually "six-star" rank is a misnomer for something that does exist (if so, what?), or that it is alluding to something which should be exposed as having no existence of any kind? Either way, if this article retains mention of Washington, why object to the image? It is likely to help the ordinary reader get a better feel for the content, whether from the point of view of a person born and bred in the culture of USA or of any other English speaking country (such as Australia, Canada, UK to name a few) or elsewhere in the eastern or western hemisphere. I don't see that UNDUE requires pedantic application and rigorous exclusion in such an article. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roll-on-the-floor-laughing-hysterically!!!

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, then your correct course of action is to get the policy and guidelines changed - NOT to ignore them! If you continue to ignore Wikipedia policy and guidelines, quite simply, you will be prevented from editing Wikipedia.

If any of this is not clear to you, I suggest you seek clarification. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, I'm confused. Is the following addressed to Qexigator or me? I've assumed Qexigator, but ...) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

is the premise that factually "six-star" rank is a misnomer for something that does exist (if so, what?) I find it hard to decide exactly what you're asking here, but I'm fairly sure even so that the answer is no. The only one who seems to think that there may be a misnomer here is yourself, and you have offered no evidence for this belief. On those grounds alone, I'd have to say I don't offer that as a premise, and I doubt that anyone does.

or that it is alluding to something which should be exposed as having no existence of any kind I think that is a ridiculous proposition, so again, I think the answer is no.

But you seem to think that there's no third possibility, just these two seemingly fanciful ideas which you have expressed using rather strange terminology. Why not? Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Definition" of six-star rank revisited

In answer to: is the premise that factually "six-star" rank is a misnomer for something that does exist (if so, what?), or that it is alluding to something which should be exposed as having no existence of any kind?:

A six-star rank is a proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars. It was proposed, but never adopted, for the U.S. rank of general of the armies.

In 1955, a six-star rank insignia and promotion to general of the armies was proposed in Congress for General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, but the proposal was shelved.

This wording is the result of WP:Consensus of many editors achieved after many hours of discussion. It would be extremely unwise of you to ignore it. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this proposed special grade designated with an insignia of six stars is a six-star rank, but is it the only six-star rank? North Korea currently has five distinct grades above OF-7 according to Comparative military ranks of Korea, and 7,679,000 persons in uniform according to List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel, so their top rank would seem to be at least six star. There are other cases in other countries past and present, but that seems the best to me. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

but is it the only six-star rank? - That's a loaded question!

No, it is NOT the only six-star rank, because six-star rank doesn't exist - i.e. There are NO six-star ranks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(For the benefit of readers who might then say: "Well why do we have an article about something that doesn't exist?", that question has already been asked, and answered, many times. In summary: "Because it was proposed, and this proposal is a non-trivial part of US congressional and military history". Read the talk page archives for better explanations.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

North Korea currently has five distinct grades above OF-7 - If you say so.

so their top rank would seem to be at least six star - I'm puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion. There is NO evidence that ANY Korean rank has any "star" grading - SOME Korean ranks have equivalence to SOME ranks that do have "star" grading, but the highest of those is at the 5* level. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Replying to please clarify: is the premise that factually "six-star" rank is a misnomer for something that does exist (if so, what?), or that it is alluding to something which should be exposed as having no existence of any kind? Good question. It's neither. The assumption that there's no third possibility is false, or so I believe and will now try to demonstrate.

Those who claim that Washington is a six-star general are simply mistaken, just as someone who says 1+1=3 is mistaken. We would not say that the person who says that 1+1=3 was using 3 as a misnomer. That would I suppose be a possible explanation, but it seems more likely that they've made a mistake of arithmetic, and I think that's what we'd assume unless there was evidence of some other problem.

But on the other hand, six star ranks do exist for the purposes of deciding whether we can have a Wikipedia article describing them. They appear in sources, and that's existence of exactly the kind that we need to demonstrate here. See Wikisource:On What There Is for an exploration of this surprisingly tricky issue by an unsurpassed logician, and one I find particularly well thought out and quite amusing.

But the point is simply that those who claim that, in the context of discussing possible topics for Wikipedia articles, such ranks don't exist are also simply mistaken. Such a rank may or may not be notable, that's another issue, but in the sense required here it does exist.

So I think I can understand your confusion now, but it seems to be because there's a third possibility that you haven't considered. Clear now? Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The confusion was not in the article questiion but is in the article and the current and archived discussions. Qexigator (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Concisely and eloquently summarised! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have a question for you User:Pdfpdf: do you think a "six-star" rank has to have six stars? The whole purpose of saying #-stars is for comparison. If I met a British OF-5, a Colonel, I'd probably refer to him/her as a "full-bird" Colonel, because an American OF-5's insignia is an eagle. The British OF-5's insignia is completely unrelated, but this Americanism is used to differentiate between OF-4 Lieutenant Colonel and OF-5 Colonel. The same applies when referring to a British OF-10, a Field Marshal, as a "five-star general". My point is that if a rank with the power and responsibility which a "six-star general" would hold exists, then it would be a "six-star" rank, regardless of what it is called or if it's insignia has six stars (or any stars). So I again point to Taewonsu, which seems to fit the bill. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have a question for you User:Pdfpdf: do you think a "six-star" rank has to have six stars? - There is no simple "yes/no" answer to that! An inadequate incomplete response is: Not necessarily. (I think User:Andrewa has provided a good response below, with which I largely agree.)

If I met a British OF-5, a Colonel, I'd probably refer to him/her as a "full-bird" Colonel - And he a) wouldn't understand you, and b) would be insulted.

The same applies when referring to a British ... - Actually, that is not quite the case. Again, there is no simple "yes/no" answer. Have a look at the 3* page (and probably 2, 4 & 5* too). There you will see examples of Commonwealth Country generals wearing "star" insignia, as well as their own country's insignia.

I could go on at length, but I'm not at all sure how interesting /useful that would be. (Or to whom it would be interesting /useful.) However, were someone to request that I did, I'm more than happy to do so.

In the meantime, (just) one of the topics I would have expanded upon has (one again) been "concisely and eloquently summarised" by User:Andrewa in the posting following this one.

(If you feel my response is inadequate, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify that which you feel has been inadequately addressed.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of answering a question not directed to me, may I point out (again) that the insignia of many five-star ranks (such as field marshal (Australia)) don't have five stars, the insignia of many four-star ranks (such as full admiral of the Estonian navy, see admiral#Admiral insignia by country) don't have four stars, the insignia of many three-star ranks (such as Air Marshall in the Hellenic Air Force, see Air marshal#Other air forces) don't have three stars, the insignia of many two-star ranks (such as Major general in the Canadian Air Force, see two-star rank#Canadian two-maple-leaves ranks - Canada doesn't use stars at all) don't have two stars, and (wait for it) the insignia of many one-star ranks (such as Commodore in the Polish Navy, see Commodore (rank)#Naval rank) don't have one star.

The issue of comparative ranks is complex. Unless and until the command structures have some relationship, in a sense there are no comparisons even possible. Even when they do these are not always consistent, for example Iceland has a Rear Admiral who is regarded as OF-7 by NATO but who commands fewer than 200 people. However, reliable secondary sources do compare ranks of even unrelated forces. It's encyclopedic information. Andrewa (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue of comparative ranks is complex. - I think that qualifies as the "Understatement of the Week". ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that to me raises the question: Given that six-star rank is claimed to be an encyclopedic topic, can we go even further and claim that it is an important topic? I think it's at least borderline. There is enormous interest in the information. There is also patent misinformation on the topic that has been widely reported, and even repeated in these talk pages. That sounds important to me. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

can we go even further and claim that it is an important topic? - Interesting question, but how about we resolve some of the currently unresolved questions before further complicating the issue?

That sounds important to me. - Sorry, I'm not quite sure of which definition of "that" you are referring to. i.e. Can you please clarify which "that" you are referring to? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)