Talk:General (United States)

message: Having in mind President Bush' remark that "thousands and thousands" of Generals support Rumsfeld: how many Generals are there? 213.93.167.189 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many Generals

message: Wikipedia's articles on General (United States), Lieutenant General (United States), General of the Air Force‎, General of the Army (United States), and General of the Armies‎ all seemed to cover a lot of the same things, so I merged them.  I have some new information that I want to add to these articles relating to the General of the Armies rank and the Civil War era General of the Army rank being similar.  But I won't add that yet.  So far I haven't added any new information to the article, I just merged the old information.  I'll let people get used to the merge first, then consider adding the new information later. - Shaheenjim 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion area for United States General articles

message: I have moved the original content of this page to the History of United States Generals to help make this page conform with the other United States ranks in Wiki. I have made a note in the History of United States Generals discussion page to credit all the original authors of the article. Neovu79 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of United States Generals

message: I just edited
 Maintaining a four-star rank is a game of musical chairs; once an officer vacates a position bearing that rank, he or she has no more than 60 days to be appointed or reappointed to a position of equal or greater importance before he or she must involuntarily retire
to read
Once an officer vacates a position bearing three or four star rank, the grade is maintained for no more than 60 days unless the officer is appointed or reappointed to a position of equal or greater importance and responsibility.
That's a pretty drastic change, so I'll explain my thinking here.
I left the previously cited supporting source in place: . Subections (a) and (b) of that source speak of "positions of importance and responsibility" which "carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral" (three and four star rank). The language there is a bit convoluted but, as I read it, it does not say that an officer leaving such a position will be forced to retire involuntarily if not appointed to another such position within 60 days. As I read subsection (b)(5), an officer holding such a rank can hold the rank for no more than 60 days while awaiting retirement (after which time, I presume, if still awaiting retirement the officer would revert to the grade held prior to appointment to three or four star rank). 
I'm neither an expert on this nor a lawyer. Feel free to correct this if I've screwed it up. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Retagged to a sourced example. Neovu79 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: My edit re 60 day limit, involuntary retirement, three and four star rank

message: I can't speak to the merger discussions above, but these two headings certainly duplicate one another. This one is shorter (and presumably more in line with other pages). Some of the content might go here; some may go into subsidiary articles if we have separate lists, histories, or whatnot. — LlywelynII 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: While both subject matter do cover the four-star rank, the term general officers is a broader and refers to any officers that holds the one-star rank to four-star rank. This article only refers to the four-star rank. If you were to merge this page into the general officers in the United States page, you would have to merge Brigadier general (United States), Major general (United States) and Lieutenant general (United States) to it as well causing that page to have too much information. I suggest in the general officers in the United States, the pages mentioned should linked instead. Neovu79 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. I see your point, but when people talk about U.S. generals, they're normally going to mean the broader sense. — LlywelynII 13:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Just checked. "General officers" in the United States (not a bad article at all) has fewer than 50 incoming links (because no one ever calls them that); this article has more than 1000: some of those are 4-stars, sure, but by no means all of them. — LlywelynII 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the edit to this page you just made. :) Neovu79 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[general officers in the United States]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion