This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OberRanks (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 14 September 2011 (moved Talk:General of the armies to Talk:General of the Armies over redirect: undiscussed move with no consensus and contrary to this rank's title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:22, 14 September 2011 by OberRanks (talk | contribs) (moved Talk:General of the armies to Talk:General of the Armies over redirect: undiscussed move with no consensus and contrary to this rank's title)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Military history: North America / United States Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: not checked
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Order
I'm back. Sorry, but my job doesn't permit me the luxury of sitting at a computer all day (I used to but I found it too lonely). I haven't read any of the changes to this date. I just want to emphasize my prime point here. Because of George Washington's importance in U.S. history, and because he is, forever more, the highest ranking military officer in the history of the U.S., I feel strongly that George Washington MUST be at the TOP of this article. Only two U.S.officers have the rank of GOA - Pershing (maybe, maybe not) and Washington. It's completely illogical to put Washington near the very bottom of this article. And it's totally ridiculous to put him below people that don't even hold the rank in the first place! Corwin8 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Feelings have little to do with this article. It's an historical subject and logical to present the subject in chronological order. If you want to feel better about it, then consider that with Washington at the end, the article closes on a high note. I wouldn't object to putting Washington in the lead, either. However, telling us what MUST be done is the hight of tendentious editing and will get you subject banned. Let us know if you are going to "insist" that something "must" be done, and I will initiate the subject ban process forthwith. On the other hand, if you're willing to work *with* other editors, I have no objection. Rklawton (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The new rewrite has an intro history section in the beginning and Washington is actually talked about as one of the first things in the article. We could even move the portrait back up there. The events of 1976, though, should stay at the end of the article because, from a historical point of view, that is the end of the story. -OberRanks (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The picture of Washington is now the first thing in the article with a narrative about his status. -OberRanks (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
1976 vs 1776
I'm get a bit suspicious of several anon ip address which appear to be "hitting" the article, making sneaky changes back and forth between Washington's date of rank as 1776 and 1976. Sometimes the ips will change it, and then immediately change it back while other times the ips will change it to 1776 and leave it, apparently hoping no one will notice. This on top of the edit warning message clearly displayed stating not to do this. These changes and reverts are cluttering up the edit history and they appear to have recently started, right after the article was unprotected. Can we investigate the source of the ip addresses? If they are all coming from the same place, then it might be a single editor with a grudge or a bone to pick and they are using this method to disrupt the article. -OberRanks (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ip addresses resolve to different locations. One is in the Pittsburgh area, one in France, one in Tampa and another in the southern U.S. There really is no further way to associate these with users unless a checkuser request can be justified which it cannot at the moment. We just need to keep it watchlisted. JodyB talk 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
World War II Cancellation
According to his service record, the proposal to promote MacArthur to General of the Armies was dropped on August 18th, 1945 (before the Japanese surrender). The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. That isn't the case and needs to be clarified. -OberRanks (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's now 0330 here, so this will be brief.
- Yes, the FORMAL surrender was 2 Sept, but Gyokuon-hōsō was 15 Aug, 3 days before 18 Aug.
- The reason that the Army "scrapped the idea" was because there was no longer going to be an Operational Downfall. - Agreed. But not JUST because of the bombs.
- The current version is suggesting that the Army waited until after September 2nd (the formal surrender) to give up on the idea. - No. The current version is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as "the Army waited until after September 2nd", which, as we both agree, would be wrong.
- Yes, we both agree that needs clarification.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I put four days after the surrender because the time difference made V-J Day August 14 in the U.S., which is presumably where the Army office that cancelled the promotion was located. - Morinao (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like your redraft. As to 3 or 4 days, I'm not fussy and will "go with the flow". Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Regarding the date, I figured the Pentagon is in the same time zone as Times Square and that famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse is dated August 14. - Morinao (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like your redraft. As to 3 or 4 days, I'm not fussy and will "go with the flow". Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Not specific and related tags
See Talk:6 star rank#Not specific and related tags for some related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan
The lead of this article stated that Grant, Sherman and Sheridan held the same rank as Pershing and Washington and outranked the World War Two five-star generals. However this was contradicted later on in the article, and is also contradicted at the article List of United States military leaders by rank. I have therefore changed the lead to make it consistent with the evidenced assertion that they were equivalent to the modern four-star rank. If you change it back, please add a source, preferably after discussing it at Talk:List of United States military leaders by rank, as there had been much discussion of sources there already. Richard75 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fact-tagged the Richard75 edit results as we don't have a source, preferably a public law passed by Congress, that defines the relationship between the civil war area and World War II area ranks of "General of the Army." I suspect Richard75's version is more accurate than the one he replaced. I personally suspect the the relative rankings were never defined. In the 1890s and 190xs there were no generals at all. Once generals were resurrected there was no reason to define their ranks relative to the ranks held decades earlier. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- That info isn't really even relevant to this article. The comparison can be discussed at the General of the Army rank, but here all we need to really say is that such a lower rank existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs) -19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good idea and so fixed the article to remove the comparison. I also found that someone had recently redirected General of the Army of the United States to this article. I changed that to point at the General of the Army article which has a section about the post-Civil War area rank. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- That info isn't really even relevant to this article. The comparison can be discussed at the General of the Army rank, but here all we need to really say is that such a lower rank existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs) -19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)