Talk:General officer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General officer article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military science task force

Contents 1 Field Marshal 2 Chinese Army 3 Regarding the UK officer ranks template 4 Maybe time for disambig 5 General of the Army and Colonel General 6 General officer 7 Other General ranks 8 Colonel General 9 a part entiere ???? 10 List of Historically significant generals 11 Female General 12 Capitalization 13 Requested move 13.1 Proposed resolution 13.1.1 Option 1 13.1.2 Option 2 13.1.3 Other options

[edit] Field Marshal

should not redirect as field marshal is difft

whats the difference? Dietary Fiber

[edit] Chinese Army

Chinese Army has Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, General of the Army, and Field Marshal... Nazi Germany had same thing, except there were ranks above Field Marshal (such as the specialized rank given to Heinrich Himmler). ugen64 23:24, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the UK officer ranks template

Is this really a good idea? The world doesn't revolve around the U.K. The rank is in use in multiple services of multiple nations. -Joseph (Talk) 05:45, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Plus the template is nigh on unreadable. Seems pointless. -Joseph (Talk) 05:52, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Why is it pointless? Template:US enlisted ranks has been around since April and nobody has had a problem with it. james_anatidae 06:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They should either all stay or all be removed. Given the existence of the US template, it's rather ironic that this one should face an accusation of being UK-centric. Indeed the world doesn't revolve around the UK, but neither does it revolve around the USA. And it's perfectly readable. -- Necrothesp 10:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. They should both not be included in generic ranks. -Joseph (Talk) 12:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe time for disambig

What do people think of turning this into a disambig page? I count at least four different countries that are mentioned here with only the pic of a US general displayed. Separate articles for each countries version of General might be in order. -Husnock 09:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At present, there is a separate disambiguation page for General, and this page links to separate articles for each country's version of General. So it looks like your requests have been met. I'll note that I think it's useful to keep this article as it is, to serve as a generic description of General. - Shaheenjim 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Army and Colonel General

As a five-star rank, General of the Army is effectively restricted to the United States, where it hasn't been awarded since 1950; the last incumbent (of a grand total of five) died over twenty years ago. (It apparently exists on paper in Liberia, but I suspect any attempt to actually use it there would be ridiculed by the outside world.) The other ranks listed on the General of the Army page are either four-star positions, or don't actually translate as "General of the Army" (possible exception: Armeegeneral).

Colonel General is likewise restricted to armies descended from the Soviet army, where it appears to be a three-star rank, rather than ranking above plain general (as the table has it). The equivalent North Korean rank of Sangjang is sometimes translated as Colonel General, probably because of the former close ties between the Soviet Union and North Korea rather than as a literal rendering of the word itself.

Neither can justifiably be included among "the more common grades of general", which the table is described as listing. — Franey 12:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale. As for Colonel General, that has been ever present throughout history and is still used today. True, most countries have it as an equivalent of a 3 star in other countries, but the countries which use it rate it above a regular General. The two ranks you speak of are just a little bit too common, I feel, to purge from the table. -Husnock 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Russian general ranks (translated) are Major-General, Lieutenant-General, Colonel-General, and General of the Army: there is no rank of "regular General". The ranks are inherited from the Soviet era, so I guess they are the same in other CIS countries. Colonel General seems to be confined to the CIS, and it's in the wrong place in the table anyway. If you have examples of any other countries that use the rank, especially above plain General, please name them.

General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale: this is a bit vague. Who uses it in this way? Who considers it be "as high as you can go"? The only English-speaking countries I've found that have a rank of "General of the Army" are the U.S. and Liberia. Other countries (e.g. Russia, France, the DDR) do or did have ranks that could be translated as "General of the Army", but this seems to be their equivalent of the rank of plain, unadorned General, which they lack: "General of the Army" was originally used in this way in the U.S., too.

Based on the evidence, I simply do not accept your statement that General of the Army and Colonel General are common ranks — certainly not as ranks superior to plain General. If you know otherwise, please provide the facts. — Franey 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See my talk on Admiral. A non-partisan alphabet table of the many General ranks would seem to be the solution. -Husnock 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General officer

This article has to combine the overlapping concepts of general officer and the single rank of general. I suggest that since the single rank of general is always a general officer, but the reverse is not true, perhaps this article should, maybe, be titled "General officer". Any comments welcome. Mesoso 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK no objections so i'll go ahead and move it Mesoso2 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)'Bold text

I propose that we move it back to "General" and have "General Officer" redirect to it. It's true that the single rank of General is a General Officer, but people usually don't refer to it as "General Officer." On the other hand, people sometimes do refer to all General Officers as just Generals. - Shaheenjim 07:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

People sometimes do refer to all General Officers as just Generals, but the single rank of general is always a general officer while the reverse is not true. I propose that we keep it as "general officer", but if most other editors wish to move it back to "general" than obviously we should do that. Mesoso2 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

General Officers are not always four star Generals. But General Officers are always Generals (in the generic sense of the word). And 1-3 star General Officers are referred to as Generals more often than four star Generals are referred to as General Officers. - Shaheenjim 23:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other General ranks

What is the deal with the section Other General ranks? It only contains one entry: Obergruppenführer. Should it be moved to the General equivalent ranks section? Or the See also section? And if not, why not? What distinguishes it from those other sections? - Shaheenjim 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel General

The "Old European system" section of this article currently says that Colonel General is between Field Marshal and General (and that General is directly above Lieutenant General). Should it be changed to say that Colonel General is between General and Lieutenant General (and that General is directly below Field Marshal)? - Shaheenjim 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it would say that in the German Empire, Colonel General is between Field Marshal and General. But in Russia, East Germany, and North Korea, Colonel General is between General of the Army and Lieutenant General. - Shaheenjim 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a part entiere ????

This is far too obscure a term to be appropriate for a general audience. Could someone who knows what it means please replace it with some suitable English words? Carina22 13:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Historically significant generals

User:Althena has suggested we have a list of "Historically significant generals", and I agree.

However s/he started it up on General Officer. In my POV, that's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. Here's some of them:

• General Officer is about the rank, not a about the people who have held the rank.
• There are literally thousands of "Historically significant generals" (maybe tens of thousands). To start such a list on this page would, at first, be a distraction. Then, subsequently, it would take over the page. Very soon, the page would no longer be about the rank.
• Also, there are already a number of lists of significant generals. For example, the external link on the General Officer page to Generals of WWII].
• etc.

I have the impression that sub-sets of this topic are already the life work of a large number of people.

Never-the-less, I like the idea, and will raise it on the military history discussion page (viz: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). If you're interested, you may want to put this page on your watchlist. But be warned, it is an extremely active discussion page with many postings per day. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pdfpdf's comment's about such a list being unmanagable and redundant. I'd also add that there'd need to be a reference for each and every general on the list being 'historically significant' to avoid original research problems. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a reader of this article (rather than someone interested in writing it) I did feel like it was missing such a topic. However, I think if you guys see value in at least mentioning actual historical generals, perhaps at the top there could be one of those links/explanations such as "This article concerns the rank. For information about historical generals, see .... (relevant article link here). Just an idea.

Or, perhaps among the most prominent links in a "See also" article listing section, there could be such a link. Althena (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur 100% with Nick. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female General

How to call a female general in the US? In germany an female general is called Mrs. General (same rank as the mal general) an written General (w) (w for weiblich=female). Its the same in all mil. ranks in germany but not in functional names. 195.145.211.194 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question.

I interpret what you're asking as some combination of: "How do you address a female general?"; "Is the way you address a female different?"; "Does a female general have a different title from a male general", and possibly other questions as well. (Please clarify if / where I'm wrong.)

In the case where you'd call a male general (or any other officer for that matter) "Sir", you call a female "Ma'am" (i.e. Madam.)

Otherwise, there is no difference. (i.e. There's no distinction like the General (w) you're describing, and you certainly do not call them "Mrs. General".)

Does that answer your question? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some years ago in the Canadian Forces a female superior officer could be addressed as either sir or ma'am, and some of them had a preference for one or the other. —Michael Z. 2008-06-02 18:01 z

[edit] Capitalization

I'm not sure exactly what the hell is going on here, but all these recent moves may have screwed up some of the redirects. Some of the redirects now point to an article which is itself a redirect. For example, General is a redirect to General officer which is a redirect to General Officer. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)