Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pdfpdf (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 10 October 2013 (→6 star rank mark 3: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Six-star rank

That's a whole lot better. Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'm confused about which secondary source says 1955, (and why it would say it). Was it:

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

As the proposal was raised for the invasion of Japan in 1945, why would this secondary source say 1955?

Can you enlighten me please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Foster talks about Pershing being made General of the Armies and then says "In 1955, a similar effort was made to reward General Douglas MacArthur, this time with specifying a six-star rank, but it never came to fruition." He then talks about Washington and the Bicentennial.

Weintraub talks about events in December 1954 on the preceding page before moving on to say, "A few MacArthur devotees in Congress, like Representative Martin, tried to organize support for honorary six-star rank for the general, but as that would have been a slap at Eisenhower, such legislation had no chance." In the paragraphs that follow, Weintraub mentions Eisenhower's heart attack in September 1955.

Korda says "Congress would twice try to promote him from the new rank of General of the Army—a five-star general—to the unique rank of General of the Armies: a proposed six-star general."

I think the two dates (1945 and 1955) might be the two times that Congressmen tabled resolutions to promote him. DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Most appreciated.

The "Why 1945" is easily explained. Have you got any idea what was particular about 1954/1955 that caused the 1955 "revival"?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that it was along the lines of a 75th birthday present, but unfortunately I can't find where I might have seen that, sorry. DrKiernan (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

6* rank

Suggest you read General of the Armies. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That article has citation needed plastered all over it. Unsourced wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've asked you elsewhere: So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My god! Your user page says you're an admin!! Therefore, you should know that your replacement of unsourced material with irrelevant information is unacceptable behaviour. I will remind you for a THIRD time, the article is about 6-star ranks. The article is NOT about "General of the Armies". You can quote an infinite number of sources for statements about "General of the Armies" till the cows come home, and no matter how many you quote, they are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to an article about 6-star ranks. You should know this. In fact, I'd be astounded if you didn't know this. What's your agenda here? Clearly, you are NOT behaving in the manner that an admin should. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are unhappy about my behavior then there are forums for you to raise your concerns at WP:AN and WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the information. I've been an editor for over six-and-a-half-years, but it's nice of you to reconfirm this information. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you "So what?" Are you ever going to answer the question? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already done so. DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You have? Where? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

tag

To me, this is a reasonable solution. In my opinion, it is a vast improvement over your previous approaches, and in my opinion it quite concisely captures the essence of the problems I have with the lack of reliable and/or verifiable sources. Had you bothered to discuss the matter rather than embark on an edit war, you would have discovered that, as reflected in the talk page archives, many of those involved in the discussions, including me, had, and still have, problems with "six-star-rank". For example, how do you prove, or disprove, something that has never existed? (As distinct from General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy, both of which have existed.)
Personally, I have an ambivalence/conflict. On the one hand, the rank has never existed. On the other hand, US military history discussions are littered with references to it. Therefore, it has some sort of "virtual" status, and it would appear to me that WP doesn't know what to do with things that have a "virtual" status.
Hopefully our future interactions, should they occur, will be "smoother", and I look forward to smoother future interactions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was better. Sourced articles are better than unsourced original research. Unsourced material may be removed at any time.

There is nothing wrong whatever with my attitude. I have performed only two reverts 21 hours apart each time removing unsourced original research and replacing it with sourced content. You have performed 3 reverts within 24 hours, each removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced original research, and you are aware of 3rr.

16:05, 7 October 2013 1st revert (reverts )

10:49, 8 October 2013 2nd revert

13:44, 8 October 2013 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

General of the Armies

I have no general problem with your recent edit, but I do think it would be useful to have a date associated with the 6-star insignia in order to chronologically slot it into the narrative and make it clear that it post-dates Pershing's 1919 4 gold stars, and the 1944 5 silver stars. Do you have a problem with associating 1945 with the insignia. If so, is there a date that you do not have a problem with? Looking forward to your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OberRanks says there are two: 1945 ("completely unofficial") and 1964 ("projected"). DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:US officer ranks

Please note that although Dewey's AN insignia was "official" (I think), Pershing's 4 gold stars was "unofficial". Pdfpdf (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A note of admiration

It must have taken considerable effort and patience to deal with six-star rank, all the associated pages and the confrontation that went with it. I salute you for your efforts, and for your patience. If you ever want a hand, or there's anything I can do, please ask at my talkpage and I'll do my best. I can't promise wisdom, but I'll certainly provide goodwill. Yours in admiration, Shem (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

6 star rank mark 3

In case you hadn't noticed, on the whole I agree with what you say - except for your unexplained desire to wrap 6 star rank into General of the armies and thereby legitimize it.
6 star rank is something that doesn't exist, and never has existed. This needs to be emphasized, and any and all attempts to pretend it exists, or has existed, need to be squashed.
This leaves the problem of how you find reliable sources for something that has never existed. (In my opinion, you can't - they don't exist.)
I would like to work with you, (not against you) on this. Are you willing to collaborate on addressing this issue? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)