Talk:Lieutenant general

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


This article is wrong I believe. In many countries including Scotland and France a Lt Gen was only subordinate to the King in the armed forces.Brendandh 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain i understand your point, but anyway in france the king held the rank of captain general. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale changes without either consensus or supporting evidence[edit]

In these edits, user:Mesoso2 has made a large number of significant changes without consulting anyone, and without any consensus.

  • none of the changes have supporting references
  • many of the statements, particularly the generalisations, are simply incorrect
  • whole sections, (e.g. "Lieutenant General equivalent ranks") have been removed without either justification or explanation
  • although there is a similarity in structure/layout between the various pages for Flag Officer/General Officer ranks, Mesoso2 has chosen to implement an entirely different structure/layout

Accordingly, as is my understanding of the wikipedia process in such circumstances, I have reverted these changes with the edit comment: "I'm very sorry, but only half of what you say is true. Let's discuss it on the talk page BEFORE making such wholesale changes."

As with the edits themselves, Meseoso2 has chosen to implement a different process: "Unding RV. You have deleted a lot of changes, i have no idea which you disagree with. If you have a specific point you disagree with, put that on the talk page"

In response: "I'm afraid that it was you who initially made the large number of changes - it is up to you to explain and justify them. Nevertheless, as you have made the request, I will put some notes on the talk page."

As Mesoso2 has asked for specific comments:

  • "In some countries (e.g. UK, USA) a lieutenant general theoretically commands an army corps, typically 20,000 to 40,000 men. In others (Eg Russia, Germany) lieutenant general is the divisional command rank, leading 10,000 to 20,000 men."
    • The original arrangement of sentences is more logical; these two sentences are not appropriate as the 2nd & 3rd of the article.
    • The first of the above two sentences is extremely vague, and doesn't say anything particularly useful or relevant about the rank; it is more a comment on the size of the country's army.
    • What does "theoretically commands" mean? Not appropriate in the second sentence of an article.
  • "Lieutenant General normally ranks immediately below a senior rank of General and above Major General. In some countries, it is equivalent to the navy rank of Vice Admiral, and in Commonwealth countries, it is equivalent to Air Marshal in the air force."
    • The original you replaced, viz: "In modern armies, Lieutenant General normally ranks immediately below General and above Major General; it is equivalent to the navy rank of Vice Admiral, and in Air Forces with a separate rank structure, it is equivalent to Air Marshal." is more accurate, better grammar, and the same sentence structure as the several dozen other Flag Officer/General Officer ranks articles.
  • Etc.

As I have said, it's not up to me to defend the consensus that is there; it is up to you to justify your changes. ALL of your changes. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay well essentially i corrected mistakes. The original text was wrong and fails to make distinctions between different uses if the rank in different countries. "Theoretically commands" is extremely self-explanatory, and the article as you prefer it already discusses the theoretical command of a corps. You seem to not understand that the version you prefer is innacurate because not all countries use the same rank system. I can explain in more detail if you don't see that.
In addition, there has been a no sources tag on this article since november 2007, which is a clear justification for changes.
Get real. No it isn't. It just means no-one has gotten off their bum and done anything. It is NOT a licence for you to CHANGE anything. It is, however, a licence for you to ADD citations... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that no sources have appeared in two and a half years, i am fully justified in removing the information i consider incorrect.
Ummm. No. You are not. It is NOT as black and white as that. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed".
Again: No. It is NOT as black and white as that. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If we both research sources this article may improve.
Now that's a nice safe statement. I have absolutely NO problem agreeing with that one. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, i added some information that is easily verified, but if you disagree with it feel free to request sources and i will seek them out! Mesoso2 (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, you seem to have completely missed the point. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Building up article[edit]

Now that the disputed unsourced informtion is removed we can slowly build up the article little by little and hopefully end up with a featured article. A a starting point I propose the following addition:

In the Commonwealth and the USA, the rank of lieutenent general is associated with the command of a corps, but in some countries (e.g. Russia) it is a more junior rank associated with command of a division.

What do other editors feel about this sentence? Are there any objections? Are there any alternative suggestions? Mesoso2 (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no objection this is now added.Mesoso2 (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Get real sunshine. Not everyone gives a s***. Of those who do, not everyone cares enough to check every 45 seconds. So you waited 2 days. Big deal. If you care: I object. Happy now? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I now propose a slightly amended version of the previous version: Lieutenant General normally ranks immediately below General and above Major General; In the USA and Commonwealth it is equivalent to the navy rank of Vice Admiral, and in Commonwealth Air Forces it is equivalent to Air Marshal. Any comments?? Mesoso2 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Plenty. Mostly obscene. However, here is a polite one: Slow down for heavens sake!
Here's another polite one: Why not listen to other people's opinions?
There aren't any? Oh yes there are!!
LtGen is NOT my highest priority in life. Neither is wikipedia.
Even if WP was my highest priority, LtGen would STILL not be my highest priority.
Never-the-less, that doesn't mean I don't care what you're doing.
This is NOT urgent. The world will NOT end if people do not respond to you immediately.
Though again, never-the-less, I in particular, and others in general, are NOT going to idly sit by and watch you stomp all over their work because you feel you have some sort of divine mission that needs to be dealt with yesterday.
Am I having any success in communicating with you? Or have you simply categorised me as a ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:UK-Army-OF8-shoulder.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:UK-Army-OF8-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)